clone_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the clone includes all children, which is valuable, but it omits other important traits: whether the original is left intact (though implied by 'clone'), whether the new instance is returned, how naming conflicts are handled, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and clearly conveys the core purpose. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 is relatively simple with a high schema-coverage and clear purpose, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, given the context of many sibling tools focusing on duplication/creation, the description lacks usage guidance and return-value information, making it only minimally 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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'to a parent', which aligns with the newParent parameter, but it does not provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. No compensation is needed because coverage is 100%.

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 'Clone' and the resource 'Roblox instance', with an important qualifier 'with all children' and destination 'to a parent'. This distinguishes it from related tools like create_object (which creates new instances) and reparent_object (which moves existing instances). The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 alternatives such as smart_duplicate, mass_duplicate, or create_object. It only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be chosen. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.

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