Clone a live Instance

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

Goes well beyond annotations: the clone starts parentless and is parented LAST only if parentPath is given, :Clone() returns nil on non-Archivable sources, and a parented clone immediately affects the running game and may replicate. These are rich behavioral disclosures the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint flags alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loads the critical warning (WRITES LIVE GAME STATE) and proceeds through mechanism, use cases, caveats, return shape, and metadata. Dense and largely waste-free, though the signature/phase/requires metadata lines make it longer than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape ({ Source, Clone, Parented, ok } or { error }), failure behavior, prerequisites, and a verification tool (get-instance-properties). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 three parameters in detail. The description adds minor sequencing context (parenting happens after cloning, threadContext defaults to server), but mostly restates what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (deep-copy an Instance), explains the exact mechanism (resolve a Luau expression, source:Clone() duplicates the instance and all descendants, optionally parent the clone), and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create-instance and destroy-instance.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios (duplicating a template Part/Model/GUI, spawning extra copies, snapshotting a subtree before mutating) and states prerequisites (active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, 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.