clone_visual

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the clone gets a fresh unique id, that the copy on the same page is nudged for visibility, and that it returns the new visual id. However, it does not explicitly state that the original visual remains unchanged or describe any failure modes, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds useful information (copy destination, nudging behavior, return value).

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 description covers the core operation, destination behavior, and return value, which is sufficient for a simple clone tool without an output schema. It doesn't detail what 'deep' includes, nor error conditions, but the essential usage information is present. Given the tool's low complexity, this is nearly complete, earning a 4.

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 schema already provides descriptions for page, visual, and targetPage, so the description adds minimal parameter-level detail. The term 'targetPage' is reiterated rather than expanded, and reportSessionId remains undocumented. With 75% schema coverage, the description doesn't significantly enrich parameter semantics, so a 3 is given.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Deep-clone one visual') and resource (a specific visual), with scope ('onto its page or onto targetPage'). It distinguishes it from siblings like move_visual (which moves rather than clones) and add_visual (which creates new visuals from scratch).

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 implies the tool is for creating a copy of an existing visual, either on the same page or another page. It gives clear context for the main use case, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., move_visual). Therefore it earns a 4 for clear context without exclusions.

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