clone_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Clone' indicating a mutation, but fails to disclose what exactly is copied (e.g., triggers, steps), what 'modifications' entails (override vs. merge), and whether source scenario is affected.

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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is optimally concise for the purpose stated.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter (modifications), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the result of cloning (e.g., returns new scenario ID), the behavior of modifications, or any side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The 'modifications' parameter is described only as 'Optional modifications to apply' without specifications.

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 uses a specific verb 'Clone' with the resource 'existing scenario' and includes the modifier 'with modifications', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_scenario' which likely creates from scratch.

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 usage for copying a scenario with changes, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not mention alternatives like create_scenario or delete_scenario.

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