clone_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates cloning and optional connection, implying mutation. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., impact on original flow), required permissions, or consequences of the 'makeActive' parameter. The transparency is adequate but superficial.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core action and an optional behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. While very concise, it could be slightly expanded without losing brevity.

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?

Given three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return value (likely a cloned flow identifier), error conditions, or behavior when the optional 'connect' is specified. This lacks sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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% (only 'sourceFlowId' has a minimal description 'flowId'). The tool description adds no parameter details beyond naming 'displayName' and 'makeActive'. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameters' purpose or constraints.

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 the action 'clone an existing flow' and specifies the context 'inside the current environment' with an optional 'connect the clone'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'create_flow' (creates from scratch) and 'connect_flow' (connects existing flows). However, it lacks specificity on what 'connect' means, slightly reducing clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'apply_flow_update' or 'create_flow_in_solution'. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions where cloning is appropriate, leaving the agent without explicit usage direction.

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