common-new-item-clone-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a clone, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., affecting original item), rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and misses critical context for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('creates a new item clone') and specifies the key input ('based on the item provided by its ID'). Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 complexity of a write operation (cloning items) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the clone entails (e.g., copies data, structure), potential impacts, or return values. For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters (id, destination, name, recurse, database). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 verb ('creates') and resource ('new item clone') with the specific mechanism ('based on the item provided by its ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'common-new-item-clone-by-path' by specifying the ID-based approach, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'common-new-item-clone-by-path' or other cloning-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the source item must exist or if specific permissions are needed. Usage is implied only by the action described.

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