clone_media_object

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. However, it only says 'Clone', omitting side effects (e.g., whether the original is preserved, if this is a deep copy, permission requirements) and any output/return behavior. The schema hints at a target fileId, but the description itself reveals no behavioral nuance.

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, concise sentence with no filler: 'Clone an existing media object.' It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is significantly under-specified. It fails to explain what the tool returns, the nature of the clone (e.g., target file, local vs. remote), or any limitations. The schema provides parameter definitions but not operational context.

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%, with parameters id, fileId, and isLocal each having a clear description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description adds no additional meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action clearly with 'Clone' and a specific resource ('existing media object'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_media_from_url by implying duplication of an existing object, but it doesn't explain what 'clone' means operationally (e.g., copy within same file or to another file).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing media object), nor does it contrast with create_media_from_url or list_file_media. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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