clone_code_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that this is a write operation, the role of confirm_write or dry_run, potential side effects, or whether it overwrites existing packages. This lack of transparency leaves safety concerns unaddressed.

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 succinct sentence with no redundant words, effectively communicating the core action. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 has 6 parameters and a write operation with safeguards (dry_run, confirm_write), the description is underspecified. It does not mention return behavior, prerequisites, or the workflow of cloning, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke without additional information.

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. While it clarifies code_name and new_code_name, it says nothing about dry_run, owner_name, confirm_write, or database_name, leaving their purpose and defaults unexplained.

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 a specific action ('clone') and resource ('code package') with a target ('under a new name'), which is distinct from sibling tools like register_code_package, revert_code_package, list_code_packages, and describe_code_packages.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as register_code_package or revert_code_package. It does not mention prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or any exclusions. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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