Clone Environment

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

The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool returns an operation_id, implying an asynchronous clone operation. However, it does not disclose whether the clone is immediate, how to track progress, or any permission requirements. The openWorldHint annotation adds little concrete behavioral context.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action and the key return detail (operation_id) are both stated directly and efficiently.

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-parameter clone operation, the description is minimal but adequate: it states the purpose and the return value. It does not explain that the returned operation_id should likely be polled via kinsta_operations_status, nor does it clarify the relationship to the source environment beyond what the schema already provides.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters such as source_env_id or is_premium, so baseline scoring applies.

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 names the action ('Clone'), the resource ('an existing environment'), and the result ('create a new one'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling clone/create tools such as kinsta_environments_create or kinsta_sites_clone, but the environment-specific wording reduces ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus creating an environment from scratch or cloning an entire site. The use case is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'Clone an existing environment.'

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