clone_agent

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit by disclosing a non-obvious behavioral rule not present in any structured field: the clone never inherits branding or funnel recipients. It does not cover auth requirements or the fact that a new agent identity is produced.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and its main knobs before the caveats and sibling routing. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description omits what a successful clone returns (presumably a new agent ID) and how the caller should reference the resulting agent afterwards. The inheritance and sibling-routing notes are good, but the post-call picture is incomplete.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description surfaces the nested carryOver flag names (kb, voiceConfig, uiEngineConfig) and characterizes overrides as optional, which helps with the nested-object grouping. It does not add range, default, or effect information beyond what the schema already holds — notably the differing defaults (kb=false vs voiceConfig/uiEngineConfig=true) stay only in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Clone an existing Convocore agent") and scopes it with the two configurable dimensions (overrides, carryOver flags), naming the three flags. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from create_agent_from_template and import_agent, so the agent can separate it from the two nearest siblings.

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?

"Prefer this over manually recreating" gives a clear preference, and "Distinct from create_agent_from_template / import_agent" rules out two alternatives by name. What's missing is the discriminating condition — when to clone versus start from a template or an import file — so the choice still requires inference.

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