clone_agent

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a creation/mutation operation (implied by 'creates'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. It adds some context about the cloning process but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, prerequisite, and alternatives/follow-up. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and zero-waste.

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 presence of an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage, and clear purpose/guidelines, the description is largely complete. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or side effects.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('creates a new agent by cloning') and resource ('configuration of an existing agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_agent (new from scratch) and export_agent/import_agent (separate workflow). It explicitly names the verb and target resource with precision.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it names list_agents as a prerequisite for finding source IDs, positions it as an alternative to the export_agent + import_agent workflow, and suggests modify_agent for subsequent adjustments. This covers both prerequisites and alternatives clearly.

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