ride_clone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '(dry-run)' suggests no side effect, yet the schema exposes a 'confirm' boolean and a 'reason-id', which implies a real re-request path that is not explained. Nothing is said about the token/auth requirement, whether the original ride is restored or a new one created, or the limits on re-requesting.

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?

Five words is not conciseness here but under-specification; the one parenthetical that was included, '(dry-run)', adds ambiguity rather than information. There is no wasted padding, but the content is too thin to be useful.

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?

This is a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must do all the work and does essentially none. An agent lacks the auth requirements, the commit-vs-dry-run mechanics, the return behavior, and the meaning of two undocumented parameters.

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 0% across four parameters (token, confirm, ride_id, reason-id), and the description explains none of them. 'ride_id' is only implicitly covered by 'cancelled ride'; the critical meanings of 'confirm' and the dry-run relationship to it are left entirely to the caller to guess.

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 phrase 'Re-request cancelled ride' gives a recognizable verb+resource, but the tool is named ride_clone, which implies duplication rather than re-requesting, and the '(dry-run)' parenthetical is left unexplained. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools ride_request or ride_cancel, so an agent cannot tell when this action is the right one.

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 statement of when to use this rather than ride_request (create a new ride) or ride_cancel (cancel one). The '(dry-run)' qualifier hints at a non-committing mode but the description never clarifies how to actually commit or what role the 'confirm' parameter plays.

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