Clone Update Set

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by explicitly noting the tool creates a new update set, copies all records, and starts in 'in progress' state. However, the phrase 'all records on the instance' is ambiguous (could be misread as instance-wide rather than from the source update set), and there is no mention of permissions or reversibility.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core action stated in the first sentence. The IMPORTANT note adds emphasis on the side effect but is not excessively verbose. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 mutation tool with three fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the resulting state, and the side effect. It lacks information about return values and potential failure conditions, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, it is reasonably complete. The ambiguity in 'all records on the instance' slightly detracts.

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 three parameters. The description only indirectly references new_name ('specified name') and source_sys_id ('existing update set') without adding meaningful details beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 tool clones an existing update set by creating a new one and copying all its records, specifying the resulting state ('in progress'). The verb 'clone' and resource 'update set' are specific, and the behavior is distinct from sibling tools like create_update_set or move_update_set_records.

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 implies the use case (duplicating an update set) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like create_update_set or move_update_set_records. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the term 'clone'.

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