Clone Agent

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds that the source agent remains unchanged, the clone becomes the session's current agent context, and lists specific error conditions (401/403, 404, 422). This goes beyond annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences pack in the core action, endpoint, requirements, auth mode, and error cases with no fluff. Information is front-loaded and every sentence carries 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 operation, side effects, prerequisites, auth, and errors. Without an output schema, it is still complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand the 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 the schema documents all parameters. The description briefly mentions optional overrides and the agentId/address alias, but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Duplicate'), resource ('existing saved agent'), and outcome ('new clone becomes the session's current agent context'). It also includes the endpoint and notes the source agent is unchanged, which differentiates it from create/update siblings.

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 clear context: it requires an existing agent id/address from list or create, and specifies auth prerequisites. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the purpose clearly implies cloning an existing agent rather than creating or updating.

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