Clone Agent

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context—such as whether the clone copies all agent settings, whether it is deep or shallow, or what resource is returned. The core action is clear, but beyond that, the description is silent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and object clearly, earning its place in exactly one line.

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 simple one-parameter clone tool, the description conveys the essential action. However, with no output schema, it omits what the caller should expect back (e.g., new agent ID) and whether the copy is fully independent. This makes it minimally viable but not richly informative.

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 coverage is 100% with a single property 'agent_id' that includes its own description ('The agent_id to clone'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a copy of an existing agent.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_create_agent (create new from scratch) and lyzr_update_agent, as it explicitly targets duplication of an existing agent.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description only implies usage via the phrase 'existing agent,' but does not mention exclusions or compare with lyzr_create_agent/lyzr_update_agent. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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