material_duplicate

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the copy can be named, but says nothing about whether textures/settings are copied, whether the duplicate is added to the scene, or how the default empty new_name behaves.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is perhaps too telegraphic, but the structure is efficient.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, but the definition still omits the meaning of the required 'name' and any side effects of duplication. For a mutation tool with no schema descriptions, this leaves the agent guessing at invocation details.

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 must compensate, but it only clarifies the optional new_name ('optional name for the copy'). The required 'name' parameter is never explained—an agent cannot tell whether it is the source material's name, a path, or a target name. This is a significant ambiguity for a 2-parameter tool.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Duplicate a material'), which distinguishes it from material_create and material_import. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of material_create, material_import, or object_duplicate, and no mention of prerequisites such as the material existing or being selected. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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