clone_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create a copy', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what is included in the clone (e.g., attachments, comments). Minimal behavioral insight.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words. However, it is overly brief given the complexity of cloning; additional structure or details would improve usability without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

No output schema and no description of return values or behavior details (e.g., whether existing fields are copied, if constraints apply). For a mutation tool without annotations, the description is not sufficiently complete to guide the 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 only 33% (boardId has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter information beyond the schema, leaving projectId and workItemId unexplained. The boardId description in the schema is helpful but not augmented.

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 states 'Create a copy of an existing work item', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from create_work_item (creates new) and delete_work_item (deletes), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools. Clear purpose but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_work_item or update_work_item. No context on prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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