clone_deck_config

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

No annotations provided. The description indicates creation and possible cloning but lacks details on side effects, failure conditions (beyond returning False), permissions, or whether it overwrites existing configs. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two-sentence description, no redundancy, front-loaded with main action. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Simple tool with 2 params and an output schema. Description covers creation, optional cloning, and return type. Missing error handling context, such as why False might be returned or what constitutes an invalid clone_from.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description explains the 'name' parameter as the group name and 'clone_from' as an optional config ID to clone from. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though constraints (e.g., uniqueness, valid IDs) are not covered.

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 it creates a new options group with a given name, with optional cloning from an existing config ID. It specifies the return value (new config ID or False). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like save_deck_config or remove_deck_config.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_deck_config or set_deck_config_id. The description does not mention prerequisites, when cloning is appropriate, or when to avoid this tool.

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