clone_draft_plan

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate a mutation that is not destructive, but the description adds little beyond that. It states 'preserve a version' but does not explain the cloning process, such as whether the original plan remains unchanged, what happens to existing versions, or the role of the required expected_hash parameter. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 sentence of 10 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, this brevity comes at the cost of missing essential parameter and behavioral details, making it somewhat under-specified. It earns its place but is not optimally informative.

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 with 0% schema coverage, a complex operation requiring hash confirmation, and an output schema that is not described, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, the cloning semantics, or the return value, leaving an AI agent with significant ambiguity about how to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to define any parameter. It does not explain plan_id (the plan to clone), version_label (the label for the clone), expected_hash (likely a concurrency check), or confirmed (perhaps to confirm the action). The tool name implies version_label is the new label, but no details are given.

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 'clone' and the resource 'managed draft plan', with the specific purpose 'to preserve a version before editing'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_draft_plan or create_draft_plan, as no other tool performs cloning. However, it could be more explicit about what cloning entails (e.g., creating a copy with a new version label).

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 minimal usage guidance: it only implies the tool should be used 'before editing' a draft plan. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like rename_draft_plan or schedule_draft_plan, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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