post_profile_clone_multi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clone multiple profiles' implies a write operation (creation of copies), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like (e.g., new profile IDs). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—just three words—with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. For conciseness alone, it's optimal.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (cloning multiple profiles, a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavior, output, error cases, or differentiation from siblings. For a tool that likely creates new resources, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (browsersIds and folderName). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Clone multiple profiles' clearly states the action (clone) and resource (profiles), but it's vague about scope and mechanism. It doesn't specify what 'profiles' are (browser profiles?), what cloning entails (duplication with new IDs?), or how it differs from sibling tools like post_profile_quick or post_profile_custom. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for profile operations (e.g., post_profile_quick, post_profile_custom, patch_profile_name_many), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or trade-offs. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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