make_clone_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: it reassures the live scenario is untouched, explains states=true copies module execution state including last trigger position, and default false gives a clean copy. It also discloses fallback logic for team_id/organization_id.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key safety context, no redundant words.

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?

Covers the core operation, safety, parameter fallbacks, and states behavior. With no output schema, it might omit return value details, but the essential use context is fully covered.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantics by explaining states behavior with an example ('last trigger position') and clarifying team/org fallback ('configured ones or the single team/org'), going beyond schema descriptions.

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 states 'Clone a Make.com scenario into a new one with a given name' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly frames it as 'the safe way to test structural changes' which distinguishes it from mutation tools like make_update_blueprint.

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 explicitly says 'the safe way to test structural changes (e.g. before make_update_blueprint) without touching the live scenario,' providing a clear when-to-use. It also clarifies fallback behavior for team_id/organization_id, guiding use in single-org setups.

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