ue_duplicate_actor

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the duplication behavior but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the existing actor, what happens to references, or what the output contains). With output schema present, the lack of detail is partially mitigated but not fully.

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 very short (one sentence) and contains no fluff, but it could be more informative without losing conciseness. It does not fully earn its place given the tool's complexity.

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 4 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the output is (despite an output schema existing), how offsets are applied (relative or absolute), or any constraints. Sibling tools provide further context but the description itself is lacking.

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 should compensate. It mentions 'optional position offset' but does not explain the three offset parameters individually or the required actor_label. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond what is evident from the names.

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 verb 'Duplicate' and the resource 'actor', and mentions the optional offset feature. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_create_cloner or ue_snap_to_ground.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ue_create_cloner, ue_spatial_query). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where duplication is appropriate.

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