clone_agent

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

The description discloses important side effects not visible in annotations: the clone is always created in draft status, triggers are cloned disabled by default, and invalid schemas only produce warnings without blocking. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond the structured annotation hints.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The main action and post-condition are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds meaningful detail without repeating schema content.

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 covers the essential post-conditions, optional trigger cloning, and non-blocking schema warnings. With no output schema, it does not describe the return value, but for a cloning operation the stated behavior is largely sufficient. A brief note on what the response contains would make it fully 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%, so the input schema already documents agent_id, new_name, include_schemas, and include_triggers with defaults. The description adds some behavioral nuance around invalid schemas and trigger state, but it does not substantially expand on the parameter semantics already present in 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Clona um agente existente' and immediately tells the agent the resulting state ('criado em status draft'). This clearly distinguishes clone_agent from create_agent and other agent-management siblings.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: duplicating an existing agent along with its schemas. It also clarifies optional trigger cloning. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is obvious enough to guide selection.

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