Backup an image by cloning it to a separate view, enabling later restoration with restore_from_clone.
Clone an image to a backup view, which can be restored from later with restore_from_clone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clone_id | Yes | Name for the clone | |
| source_id | Yes | Source view ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and that the clone can be restored, but does not disclose whether the original is modified, whether clone_id must be unique, whether the image must be open, or what the clone contains (full snapshot vs reference). This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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?
One sentence with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the reference to restore_from_clone is scannable and relevant. It is concise without sacrificing the core message.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must supply enough context for correct use. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., open image), uniqueness expectations for clone_id, or the nature of the backup (snapshot vs live copy). The tool creates a resource, so more behavioral detail is needed; the description is incomplete for a safe call.
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 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters ('Source view ID' and 'Name for the clone'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Clone') and resource ('image to a backup view'), and explicitly references the complementary operation restore_from_clone. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like copy_astrometric_solution or align_to_reference, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.
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?
It implies a clear usage context: create a backup view that can be restored later, and names the restore counterpart. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., before destructive edits) or mention any exclusions, so some inference is still required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.