Clone a KoboToolbox Form

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

Annotations already cover the mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context: it creates a new project, omits submissions, and supports optional immediate deployment via the deploy param. This goes beyond the bare annotation flags and clarifies the tool's side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by usage guidance, parameters, and return info. Each sentence adds value, with no filler. The structure makes it easy for an agent to scan and extract the key facts quickly.

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 relatively simple tool with three flat params and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the return value (uid and status), and the optional deploy action. It doesn't address edge cases like whether the original form is ever modified or what 'status' means exactly, but those are minor gaps given the annotations and simple parameter surface.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description's Args section repeats the schema rather than adding new semantic details. It does, however, reinforce the default for name and the boolean meaning of deploy, but that's marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (copy) and resource (existing form's structure) with an explicit outcome (brand-new project, no submissions). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like kobo_create_form (create from scratch) and kobo_import_xlsform (import) by describing the clone behavior.

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 gives concrete use cases ('reuse a questionnaire for a new round, region or season', 'experiment on a copy instead of a live form'), which clearly imply when to choose this tool. It does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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