clone_project

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full weight. It mentions auto-generation of slug but does not disclose what gets cloned (e.g., structure, data, settings), permissions required, or any side effects (e.g., does it trigger workflows?). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence conveys the core purpose and two key parameter behaviors. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and parameter defaults. However, it omits details about the scope of cloning (e.g., deep copy, what is included) and any prerequisites, making it slightly incomplete.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds value by clarifying that name is optional with a default behavior (auto-generated from source) and that slug is auto-generated if omitted, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Clone') and resource ('an existing project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project which creates from scratch, and export_project which exports but doesn't create a new project.

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?

Implied usage is to copy an existing project. No explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like create_project. However, the context of sibling tools helps infer use cases.

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