ruddur_clone_heading

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds value by stating the required content.manage scope and restricting to creator-owned headings, but it does not explain what the clone operation returns, how the copy is created, or any side effects.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaningful information: the action ('Clone'), the resource ('creator-owned Heading'), and the required scope.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains, how the body parameters affect the cloned heading, or how the path 'id' is used. For a mutating tool with a generic body and no return contract, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 fully documents all parameters, including pathParams.id and the generic body/query objects, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Clone' plus the resource 'creator-owned Heading', clearly stating the action and its target. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ruddur_create_heading and ruddur_get_heading by indicating duplication rather than creation or retrieval.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires scope: content.manage') and implies usage when duplicating a creator-owned heading. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like ruddur_create_heading, snapshot tools, or templates, nor does it state any exclusions.

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