clone_resource

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a required confirmation step but fails to disclose other important behaviors such as whether cloning is destructive, whether the source is modified, or what the output (new resource) entails. The description is insufficient for a high-stakes mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical usage constraint. No redundant words, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the cloning process, expected results, error conditions, or the significance of key parameters like 'full'. The description leaves the agent underinformed for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 71% (moderate), and the description adds no additional information about parameters. It does not explain the role of templateVmid, newVmid, or the full/linked clone distinction. The description should compensate for gaps in the schema but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'clone' and the resource 'an existing VM or container template', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_lxc and create_vm that create from scratch. The resource type is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a requirement to confirm with the user, but does not specify contexts where cloning is appropriate or situations where other tools (e.g., create_vm) are better suited.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.