clone_artifact

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds only the '[Scripting]' context. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects (e.g., impact on original artifact), or error conditions. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description provides minimal added value.

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 very concise, consisting of one short sentence and a tag. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it might be overly brief, missing some context.

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?

Despite good annotations and schema coverage, the description is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what constitutes a 'platform artifact', expected return value, or any usage constraints. The complexity of the tool warrants more detail.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not provide any additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. It does not explain parameter relationships or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Clone') and resource ('platform artifact'), and mentions the key features ('new name/scope'). It is specific enough to distinguish it from other tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from any potential clone alternatives among 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it give context about prerequisites or scenarios where it is appropriate. The '[Scripting]' tag implies a context but is not explicit.

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