pve_clone_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a mutation operation (implied by 'clone'), potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption, downtime), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise with a single three-word phrase, 'Clone a container', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and lack of redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in a system with many sibling tools.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying cloning involves source and target parameters, but doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., 'node' and 'vmid' identify the source) or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 container' states the basic action but is vague about scope and differentiation. It specifies the verb ('clone') and resource ('container'), but doesn't clarify what cloning entails (e.g., creating a copy with optional modifications) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_clone_vm' or 'pve_create_container' beyond the resource type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., existing container to clone), exclusions (e.g., not for VMs), or comparisons to siblings like 'pve_create_container' for new containers or 'pve_clone_vm' for virtual machines, leaving usage unclear.

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