clone_app_template

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether the clone creates a remote repo, whether it overwrites or fails on an existing appName, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, and the object of the action is front-loaded so an agent can parse the intent immediately.

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 workspace-creating mutation with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is thin: the agent learns nothing about failure modes, collisions on appName, or what the call returns (e.g. a repo URL or app identifier) that it would need to proceed.

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% (both appName and templateName are documented with examples and a default), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, naming-constraint, or default-override guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb ('Clone') plus the exact resource ('standard baseline Nstok-app-template') and the outcome ('initialize a new application workspace'). It is distinguishable from clone_feature_template by naming the app-level template, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 trailing clause 'to initialize a new application workspace' implies the scenario in which to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. must an app plan exist first), and no routing to alternatives like clone_feature_template or create_app.

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