cloud_clone_feature

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description contributes the Kiln Pro entitlement requirement, which is real context an agent cannot get from annotations. It does not say whether an existing local copy is overwritten or what error surfaces on a repeat clone, which leaves a notable gap for a write-shaped 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded before the prerequisite. It is efficient but leans so terse that it reads as a note rather than a definition, when one more clause about local-state effects would have paid for itself.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation-shaped tool with no output schema, the definition covers the prerequisite but omits outcome behavior: what is created locally, what happens if the feature already exists locally, and whether it consumes any quota. Adequate to attempt the call, not adequate to predict its result.

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 100%, so both the remote alias and feature_id are fully documented in the schema, including the default value for remote. The description adds no meaning beyond that (for example, what 'bring down' does to existing local state), so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas 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?

The description names a specific action and resource: bootstrapping local storage for a remote-only feature, which is a meaningful verb+object pairing rather than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing this from the closely related siblings cloud_clone_design, cloud_clone_preset and cloud_pull_feature_branch, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the four applies.

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?

'Needs Kiln Pro' is a genuine gating prerequisite that tells the agent when the tool is even callable, which is more than most definitions offer. Beyond that, there is no statement of when to choose this over cloud_clone_design or cloud_pull_feature_branch, so selection among siblings is left to inference.

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