Duplicate object

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the result ('adds a copy') and the positional detail ('offset from the original'), and it discloses a hardware requirement. It doesn't mention side effects or return value, but for a non-destructive duplication, the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes a useful parenthetical clarification. The hardware note is concise and appears at the end, adding value without bloating the text.

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 one-parameter tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the offset detail, and a prerequisite. It doesn't explain the return value or error cases, but these are less critical for a simple duplicate operation, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has one parameter, object_id, with no description. The tool description only says 'by id', which essentially restates the parameter name and adds no extra context about what id to use, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond the integer type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate meaningfully.

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 action ('Duplicate an object on the plate by id'), the resource, and the behavior ('adds a copy, offset from the original'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_object and transform_object by explicitly indicating a non-destructive copy with an offset.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (to duplicate an existing object by id) and adds a prerequisite note ('[needs M4b]'). It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the straightforward purpose makes alternatives unnecessary.

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