wb_duplicate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits — names are made unique and internal references are repaired — plus the dry-run-first safety model, but says nothing about permissions, side effects on the source object, or what a dry-run returns.

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 tight sentences with the dry-run safety note front-loaded after the capability statement. No filler, though the extreme brevity leaves too much implicit for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

With 9 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only documentation and it covers one flag. An agent cannot know what count, noderef_prefix, or the x/y/z offsets do, or whether output is a preview of the duplication.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only the 'write' flag is implicitly explained via the dry-run statement; file, path, x/y/z, count, keep_noderefs, and noderef_prefix are entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('an object/group') with two qualifiers that clarify the result: unique names and repaired internal references. An agent can tell this is a structural duplication operation, though nothing distinguishes it from the sibling wb_live_duplicate.

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 clause 'Dry-run unless write=true' gives a clear default-behavior cue for the write gate, which is real usage guidance. It offers no exclusions or guidance on when to choose this over sibling generators/duplicators like wb_live_duplicate or wb_array.

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