make_clone_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation does not affect the live scenario, explains that states=true copies execution state like last trigger position, and default false gives a clean copy. It also mentions the fallback logic for team/org IDs. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether a new scenario ID is returned, costs, or permission requirements), so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence establishes the primary purpose and safety context; the second covers the important parameter behaviors. It is front-loaded with the essential information and remains highly readable.

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's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, safe usage, fallback logic, and state-copying behavior. It lacks some details like the return value or permission prerequisites, but for the likely use case (cloning a scenario), it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, and the schema already explains states, name, scenario_id, and the fallback behavior for team_id/organization_id. The description repeats some of this (e.g., states default, fallbacks) without adding new detail. Thus the description adds no significant semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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' and identifies the resource 'Make.com scenario' and the result 'a new one with a given name.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by positioning cloning as 'the safe way to test structural changes' and explicitly references make_update_blueprint as an alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: as a safe method to test structural changes before make_update_blueprint, without touching the live scenario. It also clarifies fallback behavior for team_id/organization_id, giving clear context for when those optional parameters are needed. No alternatives are excluded, but the usage context is strong and actionable.

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