wp_elementor_clone_element

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 indicates that cloning produces new IDs and that confirm is needed in safe mode, implying a potentially destructive action when safe mode is off. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, side effects (e.g., whether the cloned element is inserted inline or appended), or what happens to the original element.

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 (two sentences, 18 words) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word serves a purpose, adding key information about IDs and the confirm requirement. It wastes no space.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (cloning with three parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or the expected state after cloning (e.g., does it return the new element ID?). The parameter descriptions are missing, and the behavioral transparency is low. The description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only adds meaning for the 'confirm' parameter (required when safe mode is on). The 'page_id' and 'element_id' parameters are not elaborated upon; their purpose must be inferred from the tool name and context. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand how to correctly specify these parameters.

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) and the resource (widget, section, or container subtree), and specifies that new IDs are generated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_elementor_duplicate_page (duplicate entire page) and wp_elementor_insert_section (insert new).

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 mentions that 'confirm:true' is required when safe mode is on, providing some guidance on when to set the confirm parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to clone vs duplicate a page or insert a new element), nor does it list prerequisites or constraints.

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