Clone a pattern (copies notes)

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool copies notes and renames the clone, which is consistent. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing patterns) beyond the annotations, which are already clear.

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, well-formed sentence with an example. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure front-loads the main action. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and a use case. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Slight lack of detail on behavior like error cases or naming constraints, but adequate for a clone tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (src and new_name). The description simply restates their purpose ('rename the clone' matches new_name, 'clone a pattern' implies src). It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'clone a pattern (copies notes)' and the specific resource 'pattern'. It also provides an example use case ('verse -> verse2 variations'), which distinguishes it from creating a new pattern (fl_arrange_new_pattern) or other pattern-related tools.

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 gives a concrete example of when to use the tool ('verse -> verse2 variations'), implying its context for creating variations. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would improve clarity.

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