clone_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (cloning with three modes), default behaviors (copy mode, default naming, zero offset), and the return format (dictionary with success flag, names, type, position, message). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers core operational behavior well for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with purpose statement, mode explanations, parameter details, return format, and examples. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool with behavioral complexity. Some minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating '克隆' in examples), but overall it's front-loaded and each section adds value.

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 (cloning with three modes), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, return values, and provides examples. The return format documentation compensates for the lack of output schema, making it self-sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 4 parameters: object_name (source object to clone), clone_type (three modes with explanations), new_name (optional custom name), and offset (format 'x,y,z' with default). The descriptions add meaning beyond schema titles, explaining defaults, formats, and implications (e.g., empty new_name uses default naming).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '克隆 3ds Max 场景中的指定物体' (Clone specified objects in a 3ds Max scene). It specifies the verb '克隆' (clone) and resource '物体' (objects), and distinguishes from siblings like create_object, delete_object, or rename_object by focusing on duplication rather than creation, deletion, or renaming.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to clone objects in 3ds Max. It explains three clone modes (copy, instance, reference) with their differences, helping users choose based on needs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., create_object for new objects vs. clone_object for duplicates).

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