object_duplicate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered. The description adds real value with 'with its children', disclosing a deep-copy behavior not visible in the schema. It omits whether children are copied recursively, whether the new object becomes selected, and how the default empty name is resolved.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the optional parameter; nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

The existence of an output schema removes the need to document return values. However, for a duplication tool with a 0%-covered schema, the description should clarify ref semantics and whether duplication is recursive; those gaps remain.

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 carry parameter meaning; it explains the optional 'name' as the name of the copy. The required 'ref' parameter is left entirely undefined — the schema's anyOf integer|string makes it unclear whether ref is an ID, name, or path, which is exactly the ambiguity a description should resolve.

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 and resource ('Duplicate an object') plus the key scope qualifier ('with its children'), which distinguishes it from material_duplicate and object_create in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus object_create or material_duplicate, and no prerequisites (e.g. object must exist, whether it must be selected). An agent can infer duplication semantics but must guess at selection/creation alternatives.

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