alert_clone

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the clone gets an independent ID, copied configuration, keeps the native clone name, and is requested in a paused state. This adds useful context about side effects and post-clone state, though it does not explain the role of idempotency_key.

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 description is two compact sentences and front-loads the main action. The phrasing 'Make one native alert clone' is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and incomplete schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits when to choose this over sibling alert tools, what idempotency_key does, and what the verification step returns.

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%, and the description names no parameters. It does not explain alert_id, idempotency_key, or how target_id/expected_layout_id affect the clone, leaving required parameters undocumented in the description.

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 states the action and resource: 'Make one native alert clone.' The word 'one' distinguishes it from bulk creation siblings like alert_create_bulk, though it does not explicitly differentiate from alert_create or alert_prepare.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alert_create, alert_create_bulk, alert_prepare, or alert_reconcile. The only implied usage is cloning an existing alert, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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