object.duplicate

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

Annotations already signal destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about linked vs independent object data and the unique-name requirement, but it does not clarify what destructive means here, whether the source is left unchanged, or how identity expectations are enforced.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The key action is front-loaded, and the qualifiers about data linking, naming, and transaction scope all earn their place.

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 10 parameters, 6 required, and 0% schema coverage, this description is too sparse for reliable invocation. While an output schema exists, the complicated expected_* identity semantics and idempotency contract remain undocumented, leaving the agent to guess at important constraints.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It meaningfully explains linked_data and name, and implies source_name/transaction_id, but it leaves the expected_* fields, collection_name, transform, and idempotency_key unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Duplicate one exact object" with a unique new name. It clearly conveys the core operation and distinguishes duplication from sibling tools like object.create or object.delete.

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 states the operation must happen "inside the active structural transaction," which implies an important prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly describe when to choose this tool over alternatives such as object.create or object.set, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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