Clone Site

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 operation that should be polled. However, it does not disclose side effects such as potential billing impact, required permissions, or what a completed clone includes, and the openWorldHint annotation does not cover these aspects.

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 or repetition. It front-loads the core action and immediately states the return behavior, making it easy to scan.

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 two-parameter tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it names the action, the inputs are schema-covered, and it reveals the operation_id return value. It could briefly mention polling kinsta_operations_status, but the operation_id return already strongly implies that workflow.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema fully cover display_name and source_env_id with no coverage gap. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Clone an existing site to create a new site.' It clearly communicates the tool's action and outcome, and the name plus wording distinguish it from site creation and environment-level clone siblings.

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 about when to use this tool versus kinsta_sites_create or kinsta_environments_clone. The clone wording implies use when duplicating an existing site, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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