duplicate_object

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint true, and the description adds the behavioral note that data is shared ('data dibagi'), which is not visible from annotations alone. However, it does not explain the implications of shared data (e.g., whether the original is modified, material/transform relationships) or any side effects on scene structure. 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?

The description is extremely concise, a single short clause with no filler. However, it is under-specified for the required parameters and usage, so while compact, it sacrifices needed information. Structure is simple and front-loaded.

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?

Despite an output schema existing and a simple operation, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance. It does not clarify how 'name' is used, what 'new_name' defaults to, or the consequences of shared data. Given low schema coverage and the destructive annotation, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for the parameters 'name' and 'new_name'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify their roles, requiredness, or default behavior. Given the low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not.

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 states the tool duplicates an object and indicates shared data ('Duplikat objek (data dibagi)'), providing a specific verb and resource. It is distinguished from siblings like batch_duplicate by the singular focus, though it does not explicitly contrast alternatives. The shared-data note gives useful scope, but the lack of a title or more context prevents a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as batch_duplicate, create_object, or delete_object. The description does not state prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. A brief note on typical use cases would be needed.

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