sub_page_configs_clone

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool writes (readOnlyHint=false) and is not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context such as whether it copies tags, requires a unique name, or what side effects occur. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond them.

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?

The description is a single short phrase with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, bordering on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 clone operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description omits critical context: what exactly gets cloned, whether the new config needs a distinct name, and what happens on success. The annotations only cover write/non-destructive behavior, so the description leaves substantial gaps.

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 for the undocumented cloneFromUuid parameter. Although the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, the description provides no meaning, format, or constraints, leaving the schema's bare UUID type to carry the full burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('Clone') and resource ('subscription page config'), making the operation identifiable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sub_page_configs_create and sub_page_configs_update by implication, though it does not explicitly say what is cloned or what the result is.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of sub_page_configs_create or other alternatives. The description offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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