pattern_clone

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 reveals what gets copied, but does not state whether a new pattern is created, where the clone appears, how the optional new_name is used, whether the original is modified, or what the tool returns.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds the most important operational detail about what gets copied. It is appropriately concise for the tool's scope.

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?

The definition is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly without additional inference. It does not explain the role of the two parameters, the side effects of cloning, or the expected result, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters. It mentions cloning a pattern but never states that index identifies the source pattern or what new_name does when provided versus left as the default empty string.

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 states a specific action ('Clone a pattern') and clarifies what is copied ('all notes & channel grid bits'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from pattern_create/pattern_rename, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related pattern tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or expected workflow. The verb 'clone' implies a use case, but the description never states conditions or exclusions.

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