clone_analysis

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden: it discloses that the clone gets a new name and ID, lists all copied components, and states the original is unaffected. It omits permission requirements, size limits, and whether the clone counts against quotas, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose before the detail and workflow. The numbered workflow is slightly verbose but each step maps to a real action, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is cloned and the intended workflow. It is complete for invocation, with only minor gaps around permissions and side effects.

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 100% with only two required params, so the schema already documents them fully. The description reinforces that a new name is assigned but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (clone) and resource (QuickSight analysis) plus its purpose, and elaborates exactly what is copied (sheets, visuals, calculated fields, parameters, filters). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as backup_analysis or snapshot_analysis, which an agent may confuse it with.

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?

Provides explicit context ('test changes without affecting the original') and a numbered best-practice workflow ending in publish_dashboard and deleting the clone. No exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., vs snapshot_analysis) are given, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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