bulk_clone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses fresh unique IDs, collision-safe child renaming, subtree offset semantics, and that all clones collapse into one undo step. It also surfaces error conditions like parentName requiring a component and namePattern containing '{i}'. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense paragraph but every clause adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then systematically covers naming, placements, offsets, and undo behavior. Given the tool's complexity (11 params), the length is justified, though a bulleted structure could improve scannability.

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?

The description thoroughly covers input semantics and behavioral effects, but it does not mention what the call returns (e.g., a list of created names, count of clones, or errors). With no output schema, a brief note on return value would round out the picture. The complexity is high, but the description handles most of the input side exceptionally well.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential meaning: the precedence rules (names wins over namePattern+count), the distinction between startIndex and the 0-based offset multiplier, and the verbatim prompt requirement. These clarifications are not present in the raw schema and are critical for correct invocation.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Deep-clone one source object into many copies in a single call'. It also explicitly identifies itself as 'the batch counterpart to clone_object', which clearly differentiates it from the most relevant sibling tool.

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 clearly positions this as the batch version of clone_object, implying use when cloning many objects at once. It also explains when to use `names` vs `namePattern`+`count`, and even notes error conditions (e.g., if namePattern lacks '{i}'). It doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of calling clone_object repeatedly', but the batch counterpart phrasing is strong guidance.

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