common-new-item-clone-by-path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'creates' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on permissions required, whether cloning is destructive to the original, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (no output schema). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic 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 (a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the cloning behavior (e.g., deep vs. shallow copy with 'recurse'), doesn't mention prerequisites like database context, and provides no output information. For a tool that creates new items, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, no clarification on path format, no explanation of how 'recurse' affects cloning). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 'Creates a new item clone based on the item provided by its path' clearly states the action (creates) and resource (item clone), but it's vague about what an 'item' represents in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'common-new-item-clone-by-id' which presumably does the same operation but uses an ID instead of a path. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the domain/context.

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. With siblings like 'common-new-item-clone-by-id' and 'common-convert-from-item-clone-by-path', there's no indication of when path-based cloning is preferred over ID-based or what differentiates cloning from conversion. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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