duplicate_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'Duplicate an object with all its data' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive to the original, whether it requires selection, or what happens to the duplicate's name if new_name is empty. It also doesn't state if the new object is active or selected. This lack of behavioral detail is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very short, using a one-line summary and a docstring-like argument list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is no fluff. However, the Args section is redundant with the schema, and the description could have used that space for behavioral guidance, so it is concise but not optimally structured.

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 moderate complexity (only 2 params) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent calling this tool would need to know: what exactly is duplicated (all data? modifiers? materials?), whether the original is affected, and behavior when new_name is not provided. The description only says 'with all its data', which is vague. This does not suffice for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema has two parameters, both self-explanatory from their names, and schema coverage is 0% meaning the schema has no descriptions. The description repeats the parameter names and adds a single hint: 'new_name' is optional and defaults to empty, implying the duplicate gets a default name. However, it does not specify the format of the default name or any constraints, so it adds minimal value beyond 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 clearly states the operation: 'Duplicate an object with all its data.' It identifies the specific verb (duplicate) and resource (object), and it implies the duplicate copies all data, which distinguishes it from other object operations like delete or rename. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like delete_object or rename_object, but the verb is distinct enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any side effects, limitations, or why one might choose this over similar operations. The docstring only lists arguments, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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