clone_board

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the name. It does not disclose whether the clone copies parameters/description, whether the source board is modified, what the default new-board name is, or what the response contains.

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 technically concise but far below the size needed for a mutation tool with four undocumented parameters. This is under-specification rather than efficient writing.

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?

A mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, four parameters (one a nested object) and zero schema documentation leaves the agent with essentially nothing beyond the name. The definition is not complete enough to call correctly.

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 4 parameters, including a nested free-form 'parameters' object, and the description adds nothing. An agent cannot learn that boardId is the required source, or that name/description/parameters are optional overrides for the copy.

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?

'Clone an Umami board' states a specific verb and resource, so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate from siblings such as create_board or update_board, nor explain what the clone copies, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clone versus create_board, no prerequisites (e.g. permissions on the source board), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the scenario entirely from the name.

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