clone_artifact

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds a minimal verb but no extra behavioral context such as whether the original is preserved, what fields are copied, or if scope is required. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not enrich them beyond the basic clone semantics.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. The [Scripting] tag adds minimal but potentially useful context. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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?

The tool is a straightforward clone operation with all parameters documented in the schema. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return behavior or side effects. Given its simplicity and full schema coverage, the minimal description is acceptable but does not go beyond the bare essentials.

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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (table, sys_id, new_name, target_scope). The description's 'new name/scope' phrasing maps to the new_name and target_scope parameters, but adds no extra detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Clone') and resource ('platform artifact') with explicit outcome ('to a new name/scope'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling artifact tools like push_artifact, pull_artifact, and sync_status by focusing on duplication rather than transfer or synchronization.

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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to similar artifact operations. The context is implicit from the verb 'clone,' but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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