snowflake_clone_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'zero-copy' but does not explain what that implies (e.g., no data duplication, instant creation). It also fails to disclose behaviors like whether the target database must not exist, what happens on conflicts, permission requirements, 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 a single, direct sentence that conveys the core intent without any redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, placing the key action and resource immediately.

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 description is minimal for a database mutation operation. It does not cover important context such as prerequisite conditions (source existence, permissions), the behavior if the target already exists, or the implications of zero-copy (e.g., storage efficiency, dependency on source). The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these missing operational details.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It does not mention source_database or target_database at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about their roles, required formats, or any constraints beyond what the schema already shows.

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 (create) and the resource (a zero-copy clone of a database), using the exact phrase 'zero-copy' to convey the specific cloning mode. The name 'snowflake_clone_database' and the mention of 'database' distinguish it from siblings like snowflake_clone_table and snowflake_clone_schema, which target different object types.

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 its alternatives, such as snowflake_clone_table or snowflake_clone_schema. It doesn't mention any conditions for database cloning versus other clone types, nor does it indicate when it would be inappropriate to use this tool.

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