clone_workflow

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses server-side UUID remapping and action-chain rewiring, the default copy naming, and that the full cloned object is returned. It does not reconcile why a clone is flagged destructive (e.g., whether it consumes quota or creates side effects), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then server-side behavior, then the naming default and return value. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states it returns the full cloned workflow object, and it covers naming and server-side wiring for a 2-parameter tool. The missing piece is any acknowledgement of the destructiveFlag/side-effect profile, which an agent would want before invoking a mutation.

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%, and the description's naming detail ('Copy - {original name}' unless overridden) simply restates what the schema already documents for the name parameter. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (clone) and resource (workflow), and adds the scope detail 'independent copy on the same location'. It is distinguishable from create_workflow by intent, but the description never names any sibling to sharpen that contrast, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb; there is no explicit when-to-clone-vs-create guidance or any stated prerequisite beyond the workflowId source hint in the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps against the create_workflow/update_workflow siblings.

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