clone_instrument

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: branching logic is cleared because it references original field names, field_prefix prevents collisions, and the return is a confirmation message with the count of cloned fields. This goes beyond basic expectations and flags a non-obvious side effect.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a caveat, then parameters, then return value. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the purpose, all parameters, a key edge case (branching logic), and the return value. Given the output schema exists (though not shown), and the tool has only three parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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%, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so with clear definitions: source_form (internal name of source), new_form_name (internal name of new instrument), and field_prefix (example 'v2_' turning 'age' into 'v2_age'). This fully compensates for the schema gaps.

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 tool clones all fields of an instrument into a new instrument, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like rename_instrument or delete_instrument by focusing on the cloning action and the field_prefix mechanism.

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 for when to use the tool (when cloning an instrument with all fields) and mentions a critical follow-up (update_field for branching logic). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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