CloneDataSource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '克隆' (clone) implies a write operation that creates a copy, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to the original data source, if there are rate limits, or what the output looks like (since no output schema exists). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details is a critical gap.

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?

While concise with just two Chinese characters, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load essential context and doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. True conciseness balances brevity with usefulness, which this lacks.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what cloning entails, what gets copied (e.g., configurations, connections), or what the result looks like. For a tool that likely creates a new resource, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 documentation for both parameters ('Id' and 'CloneDataSourceName') in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details in the description, which applies here.

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 '克隆数据源' (Clone data source) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'CloneDataSource' in Chinese. It provides no additional specificity about what cloning entails, what resources are involved, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'CreateDataSource' or 'UpdateDataSource'. The purpose is stated but lacks distinguishing details.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing data source), compare it to 'CreateDataSource' for new data sources, or specify scenarios where cloning is appropriate (e.g., duplicating configurations). Without any usage context, the agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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