duplicate_directory

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the second reference-replacement pass, that copies are saved, the 'copy what you modify, share the rest' sharing policy, and the type-specific caveats (Blueprints recompile, maps unsupported). No contradiction with 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the differentiating behavior, then caveats, then the return shape. It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every clause carries actionable information; minor redundancy in restating the vs-duplicate_asset distinction.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description supplies the full return shape (source_path, dest_path, counts, remapped flag, new_asset_paths) plus behavioral limits, giving an agent everything needed to call and interpret it 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 both parameters carry their own example paths, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Recursively copy a content folder to a new path') plus the crucial semantic that separates it from a plain copy: reference remapping for graph isolation. It explicitly names and contrasts the sibling duplicate_asset, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('material/instance/texture/data-asset libraries') and when-not ('Blueprints may need a recompile', 'maps (UWorld) are not handled specially'), and contrasts against duplicate_asset/DuplicateDirectory as the no-remap alternative. Conditions for selecting this tool are fully spelled out.

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