ds_clone_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (cloning, optional auto-release) and the return dictionary. However, it does not mention preconditions, permissions, side effects (e.g., whether the new workflow is a deep copy, whether existing names are overwritten, or if there are any destructive implications). For a copy operation this is a moderate gap.

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 well-structured with a one-line purpose, an Args block, and a Returns block. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a Returns section with a sample dictionary, which is essential. It also covers all parameters and the auto_online behavior. It does not discuss when to use versus alternatives, but that is covered under usage guidelines. Overall, it is adequately complete for a clone tool.

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 0%, but the description compensates with an Args list that explains each parameter. It adds meaning beyond the schema, notably 'empty = copy source description' and 'Auto-release after cloning'. This is helpful, though types are left to the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Clone/copy a workflow.' This clearly distinguishes it from create_workflow (making something new) and update_workflow (modifying an existing one).

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 clearly implies use when you need to duplicate an existing workflow. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the action is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools. The parameter list further clarifies the context (source workflow code, new name).

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