hosts_clone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not say what gets copied, whether the original host is modified, whether the clone is enabled, or what permissions are required.

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?

At two words, it is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to include information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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?

For a mutation/clone operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a cloned host inherits or how the clone is named/configured, leaving major behavioral gaps that annotations do not fill.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but does not mention cloneFromUuid or explain its role. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Clone host'. It clearly identifies the operation, but adds no detail about what cloning entails (copying configuration, tags, inbounds, etc.) and does not differentiate from siblings like hosts_create or hosts_update.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hosts_create. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions are provided.

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