Snowflake Clone Database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real Snowflake-specific value with 'zero-copy', signaling metadata-only clone semantics with shared underlying storage rather than a data copy. It still omits whether the operation requires ownership/privileges, whether a pre-existing target conflicts, and whether the clone is independent or storage-linked afterwards.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and the distinguishing 'zero-copy' trait. There is no waste, but the brevity leaves obvious gaps that a second sentence could have filled without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a state-changing object-creation tool, the description supplies no prerequisites, no conflict behavior for an existing target, and no routing against the sibling clone/create-database tools. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the schema provides no semantics at all and the description must compensate. It never mentions source_database or target_database, what naming/qualification rules apply, or what happens if target_database already exists. Parameter names are fairly self-evident, which keeps this above a 1, but the description adds nothing.

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 and resource: 'Create a zero-copy clone of a database'. This is clear and distinguishable from non-clone DDL siblings like snowflake_create_database. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related snowflake_clone_schema or snowflake_clone_table, which use the same clone concept at different object levels.

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?

No guidance on when to use a clone versus creating an empty database, no prerequisites (e.g. source database must exist, required privileges), and no mention of alternatives such as snowflake_create_database or snowflake_clone_schema. The agent must infer all usage context.

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