clone_test_case

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that step IDs are never carried over, execution history/attachments are not copied, name and folder defaults, and the return object includes key, url, and sourceKey. No contradictions.

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 paragraph that efficiently communicates all necessary information. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for behaviors). It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the operation.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the composite nature (read+create), enumerates what is and is not copied, specifies defaults, and mentions the return fields. All four parameters are sufficiently described, and constraints (folder must exist) are noted.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds meaningful defaults (name defaults to '<source name> (copy)', folder defaults to source folder, includeScript defaults true). It clarifies the meaning of testCaseKey as the source key, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 using specific verbs ('clone', 'composite read+create') and specifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_test_case (which creates from scratch) and update_test_case (which modifies existing) by describing its unique behavior of duplicating an existing test 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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to duplicate a test case with settings) and provides context about what is copied and what is not, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions when this tool should be avoided. The context is clear, so it scores a 4 rather than a 5.

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