whodb_platform_clone

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: the preview-then-confirm two-step flow and the fact that per-call workspace targeting does not mutate session defaults. It omits what a clone actually copies vs. references, but the added workflow context is meaningful.

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 action and its resource scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the confirmation gate and workspace behavior following. Only four lines total, with minimal waste, though the second sentence packs several clauses together.

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 no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the confirm-before-apply gate and the scoping semantics of workspace. Nothing critical is left unstated for a four-parameter clone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents source, new_name, resource, and the nested workspace object. The description only restates the resource list and the workspace {host, org, project} targeting, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (clone) plus the four resource types it operates on (dataset, ontology, transform, function) and the scoping context (selected project). This clearly separates it from sibling mutators like whodb_platform_create and whodb_platform_update without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: the default mode returns a confirmation token and whodb_platform_confirm must not be called until the user approves the preview. That is a concrete when/when-not rule tied to a named sibling. It does not, however, say when to prefer clone over create/import alternatives.

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