clone_test_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the composite operation, what is copied (objective, precondition, status, etc.), what is not (step ids, execution history, attachments), defaults for name and folder, and return format.

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 informative but slightly verbose; however, every sentence adds value and the structure is logical, starting with the main action then detailing specifics.

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 clone tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains the return format ({ key, url, sourceKey }), covers all behaviors, and provides sufficient context for effective use.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that folder must exist, name defaults to '<source name> (copy)', includeScript defaults true, and provides context for each parameter.

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 a Zephyr Scale test case within its project, distinguishing it from siblings like create_test_case or update_test_case by specifying it's a composite read+create operation.

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?

It explains when to use the tool and explicitly lists what is not copied (execution history, attachments), but could be more explicit about when not to use it or point to alternative tools for copying attachments/history.

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