hookmark_clone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explicitly stating this is a copy operation that doesn't modify the source item's hooks, which clarifies important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if hooks already exist on the destination, leaving some 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?

The description is efficiently structured with three sentences that each add value: the core operation, clarification about source preservation, and usage context. There's no wasted text, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context about the operation's purpose and behavior. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more detail about potential side effects or error conditions to be fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'source' and 'destination' but doesn't provide additional context about format constraints or usage patterns. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Clone all hooks'), identifies the resources involved ('from one item onto another'), and distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying it's a copy operation that doesn't modify the source. It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining what cloning hooks means in practice.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Useful when duplicating a file or moving content to a new location'), which helps the agent understand appropriate scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools or provide 'when-not-to-use' guidance, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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