cloud_clone_feature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful facts — local state is created and a Kiln Pro entitlement is required — but says nothing about whether cloning overwrites an existing local feature, idempotency, or error behavior on a bad feature_id. The bulk of the text is plan marketing rather than tool behavior.

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 functional sentence is correctly front-loaded, but three of the four lines are pricing/upsell copy and a marketing URL that add nothing to invocation. Those sentences do not earn their place in a tool definition.

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 an undocumented required parameter, the description should cover the mutation semantics and result of cloning. An agent cannot tell what state exists after the call or how collisions are handled, so it is not sufficient for correct invocation.

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%: feature_id has no description at all, and remote only carries a default value. The description never mentions either parameter name or their expected form (e.g., whether remote is a remote-name or URL), so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: bootstrapping (cloning) local storage for a feature that exists only remotely, which aligns with siblings cloud_clone_design and cloud_clone_preset by resource noun. It never explicitly names those siblings or states the distinction, but the resource scope is unambiguous enough for selection.

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?

"Bootstrap local storage for a remote-only feature" implies the trigger condition (the feature exists remotely and you need a local copy), but this is inferred rather than stated. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many cloud_pull_* / cloud_clone_* siblings.

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