Snowflake Clone Schema

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the meaningful 'zero-copy' semantics (metadata reference rather than physical data duplication), which annotations do not convey. It omits, however, whether the target must be empty/nonexistent or what privileges are required.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately terse for a name that already conveys much of the action, though the brevity edges toward under-specification given the undocumented parameters.

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 described, but this is a mutating, open-world tool with 0% parameter documentation and no usage guidance. For a clone operation that creates a new schema object, the description does not supply enough context to invoke it confidently.

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% and the three parameters (database, source_schema, target_schema) are named but entirely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for any of them, so the agent cannot tell whether 'database' scopes the source, the target, or both.

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+resource ('Create ... clone of a schema') and adds the distinguishing 'zero-copy' qualifier, which separates it from snowflake_create_schema (which creates an empty schema). However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling create/clone tools, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as snowflake_create_schema vs clone_schema, and no prerequisites (e.g., target schema must not already exist). The agent is left to infer when cloning is appropriate.

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