word_clone_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool clones a template, preserves formatting, and is restricted to table-templates. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior for output_path or any other side effects, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: first states core function, second provides legacy status and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 tool has seven parameters and no annotation, but the description provides no parameter semantics, and only a high-level purpose. Although it mentions legacy status and alternatives, the lack of parameter guidance means the agent cannot correctly construct a call, making it incomplete.

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 description completely ignores all seven parameters, including optional fields like date, title, main_topic. It does not explain how parameters map to replacement fields, leaving the agent without necessary invocation details.

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?

Description states 'Clone a table-template Word doc and replace fields' with a specific verb+resource, and notes it preserves formatting. This clearly distinguishes from siblings like word_replace, which modifies an existing doc rather than cloning.

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?

Explicitly labels itself as 'Legacy tool' and instructs 'for new templates, prefer word_analyze + word_replace'. This directly tells the agent when to avoid this tool and which alternatives to use.

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