cloud_clone_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the operation is plan-gated behind Kiln Pro, and it materialises local storage for a design that lives only remotely. It says nothing about what happens if local data already exists, whether it overwrites, or what errors result from a non-Pro account, which is a meaningful gap for a mutating clone operation.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but two of the four lines are promotional copy about what Kiln Pro 'would' do plus an upgrade URL, neither of which helps an agent invoke the tool. Roughly half the text does not earn its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented in the schema, the description should compensate but does not: return value, local path behaviour, and error modes are all unspecified. The plan requirement is the only piece of genuinely load-bearing context supplied.

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 coverage is only 50% — remote has a bare default note and design_id has no description at all. The description mentions neither parameter and adds zero meaning about what design_id identifies or how 'remote' selects among remotes, leaving the agent to guess.

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 first line names a concrete action and object (bootstrap local storage for a remote-only design), which is more specific than the name alone. However, the following sentence describes the product's cloud push/pull capability rather than what this specific call does, so an agent still cannot tell exactly what artifact is produced locally. It never distinguishes itself from near-neighbours such as cloud_clone_feature or cloud_pull_branch.

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 only gating information is 'Requires Kiln Pro', which is a useful precondition but not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to choose this over cloud_clone_feature, cloud_clone_preset, or cloud_pull_branch, and no exclusions or failure conditions.

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