duplicate_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the destination-location constraint; it says nothing about overwrite behavior if the destination exists, permission requirements, reversibility, or what the operation returns for a mutation-style copy.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation stated first and the constraint second. No padding, though it could have used the space for the missing behavioral details instead.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin for a mutation tool: overwrite semantics, source/path expectations, and success/failure outcomes are all absent, leaving the agent to guess.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It gives useful meaning for 'destination' (must be inside the active mod) but leaves 'source' format/scope (path? asset ID? can it be outside the mod?) unexplained, so partial compensation only.

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 ('Copy') and resource ('asset') plus the target scope (the active mod), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings like create_mod or list_assets, but the action itself is clear.

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 constraint 'destination must be inside that mod' implies usage context and a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g. versus create_mod or search_assets) and no mention of failure conditions.

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