clone_preset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals only that a new preset is created and inherits from an existing one. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether changes to the base propagate), failure conditions (e.g., duplicate new_name, missing base), or whether this is a mutation with persistent storage implications.

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 10-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource. It could earn a 5 by adding a brief parameter or behavior note while staying concise, but it is currently well-sized.

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 3-required-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what 'preset_type' means, what the return value is, or what 'inheriting' entails behaviorally. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from this alone.

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 0% and the description adds little beyond parameter names. 'base' and 'new_name' are partially inferable from the description, but 'preset_type' receives no explanation, and there is no guidance on valid values, relationships between parameters, or how each parameter is used in the cloning process.

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 ('Create'), a resource ('new user preset'), and the defining behavior ('inheriting from an existing preset'). This clearly indicates a clone operation and distinguishes it from read tools like get_preset or list_presets, though it does not name any sibling directly.

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 implies usage: use this when you want to create a new preset based on an existing one. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like set_preset_values or remember, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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