duplicate_actor

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

It discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: it is undoable, it changes the editor selection as a side effect, the clone is only in memory until save_level writes the .umap, and a misleading save success with a clean git status can indicate a read-only LFS-locked file rather than a failed duplicate. It also explains the return shape despite no output schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by side effects, constraints, persistence caveats, and return shape. The Git LFS read-only caveat is long but useful, and the overall structure is coherent with minimal wasted wording.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return object shape and explains the relevant mutation, naming, selection, undo, and persistence behavior. An agent has what it needs to invoke and interpret 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 100%, and the single actor_name parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the internal-name-only constraint but adds no new syntax or format details 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 gives a specific verb and resource: copy one editor-world actor in place through the editor's duplicate path, preserving component overrides. It names the return payload and the matching constraint, distinguishing it from sibling actor tools like spawn_actor and copy_actors.

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?

It clearly frames the intended context: duplicating an editor-world actor in place, matching only the internal name and not editor labels. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as spawn_actor or copy_actors/paste_actors, but the practical usage context is understandable.

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