clone_graph

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the clone is created as a new DRAFT with '… (copy)' in the name, and it is 'safe' for iteration, implying the original is unaffected. This adds useful context beyond the bare operation.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, including the naming convention and use case. No wasted or redundant text.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the result format (DRAFT with copy suffix), and the intended use case (safe iteration on published graphs). It does not mention edge cases or return values, but these are not critical for such a straightforward clone operation.

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?

There is one parameter, graphId, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description implies that graphId refers to the graph to clone, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or its format. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description could have added more clarity (e.g., whether it is an ID, path, or object).

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 tool's action ('Склонировать граф' - clone a graph) and specifies the result (a new DRAFT with '… (copy)' suffix). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like copy_graph by emphasizing the DRAFT creation and safe iteration use case.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to safely iterate over a published graph without modifying the original. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of perfect guidance.

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