batch_duplicate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens to the original object, how duplicates are named, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant information. It earns a perfect score for efficiency.

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?

While the tool is relatively simple, the description omits essential details such as whether the original is kept, how offsets are computed in world space, and naming conventions for the duplicates. Even with annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's full behavior.

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 description explicitly maps 'N kali' to the count parameter and 'offset linear' to the offset parameter, providing some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it fails to explain the offset array format (units, axis order) and does not mention object_name at all, leaving the agent to guess details.

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 duplicates an object N times with a linear offset, identifying the verb 'duplicate' and the resource 'object'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like duplicate_object (single copy) and array_object (which likely creates an array modifier). However, it lacks specifics about whether duplicates are separate objects or instances and how offsets are applied, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_object or array_object. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and minimal description.

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