sub_page_configs_clone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clone' implies a mutation (creating a new config), but the description doesn't state whether this is a deep or shallow copy, whether the clone is immediately active, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could arguably include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the effect of cloning (e.g., whether it creates a new config with a new UUID), any side effects, or what the agent should expect in the response. Given the tool's complexity is low (one parameter), a bit more context would make it complete.

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 100% (the single 'uuid' parameter is described as 'Config UUID to clone'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description doesn't add extra meaning about the parameter, such as whether the UUID must be a valid existing config or whether cloning preserves the same UUID. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 'Clone a subscription page configuration' clearly states the verb (clone) and resource (subscription page configuration), which is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools like sub_page_configs_create, sub_page_configs_update, and sub_page_configs_delete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the broader set of clone tools (e.g., node_plugins_clone), though the resource name provides that distinction.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the source config must exist), what happens to the cloned config (e.g., whether it's a new UUID), or when one might prefer this over sub_page_configs_create. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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