Duplicate object

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

The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is an additive mutation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it creates exactly one copy per call, places it adjacent to the original, and is repeatable. It does not say what identifier the new copy gets, whether the operation is undoable, or whether anything is returned, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by a compact invocation note. Both clauses carry information and there is no filler.

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?

For a low-complexity single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core effect and repeat behavior. It leaves gaps an agent would care about: how to discover the object_id, whether the duplicate appears on the same plate only, and what handle to use for the new copy.

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% for the single parameter object_id, so the schema does not explain what the ID refers to or where to obtain it. The description only implies that 'an object' is being duplicated and adds no format or sourcing detail, so it partially but not fully compensates for the uncovered parameter.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ('Add one copy of an object') and specifies placement ('next to it on the plate'), so an agent knows exactly what the operation produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like add_plate or transform_object, which keeps it from 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?

'Call it again for more copies' gives an implied usage pattern for repeated duplication, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when this is the right tool versus transforming or moving an object, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., the object must already be on a plate).

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