clone_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the operations: fetches all widget sections, applies modifications, and returns a payload with provenance comments. However, it does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or whether the payload is immediately written.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, followed by a bullet list of actions, then modifiable fields, and finally the return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 4 parameters (2 required, nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, modifications, and return value. It could mention payload format or validation, but overall is sufficiently complete for a clone operation.

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 about 75% (source_id, new_name, new_id have descriptions; modifications does not). The description adds meaning by listing the specific modifiable fields (template, css, etc.) and explaining the output, compensating for the schema gaps.

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 ('clone') and resource ('Service Portal widget'), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like 'create_widget' and 'update_widget'. It explains the workflow: fetching widget sections, applying modifications, and returning a payload.

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 communicates when to use the tool (cloning an existing widget with optional modifications) and implies alternatives exist via sibling list, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or exclusionary guidance.

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