clone_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by stating that the copy is inactive, includes credential references, and that the operation is safe. It also mentions fetching the source, implying read-only behavior. This is sufficient for a non-destructive clone.

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 sentences with zero unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded and each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second gives rationale.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally indicate return value. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the new workflow ID or object). For a clone operation, this is a gap. Otherwise, the description covers inputs, behavior, and use case adequately.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning—it confirms the purpose but does not explain formatting, constraints, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb 'duplicate' and clearly defines the resource 'workflow'. It details what is copied (nodes, connections, settings, credential references) and the resulting state (inactive copy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workflow or activate_workflow.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'safe experimentation on production workflows'. It implies when to use (for testing) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the context is clear.

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