Clone Software Repository package

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds that a 'full copy' is created, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether it triggers automations or consumes resources). It does not contradict annotations, but it adds limited behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that cover purpose, behavior, and permission. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids any redundant information. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

With 4 parameters, all documented, and an output schema available, the description is largely sufficient. It mentions the required permission and that a new package ID is generated. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'full copy' entails (e.g., whether all versions, settings, and associated data are duplicated). Still, overall it provides adequate context for tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters (package_id, org_id, confirm, dry_run). The description does not add new insights beyond the schema; it only restates the overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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'), the resource ('Software Repository package'), and the outcome ('full copy under a new package ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like action1_create_package (which creates from scratch) and action1_delete_package. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage (when you need a duplicate of an existing package) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like action1_create_package or action1_update_package. No 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings is provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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