plasticity_duplicate_bodies

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

With annotations only covering readOnly/destructive/openWorld hints, the description still contributes real behavior: the copies get new stable body IDs, remain editable B-Rep, occur in a single history step, sources are preserved, and a zero translation deliberately produces coincident copies. It omits failure modes (invalid ids, stale revision) and any permission/limit constraints, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, and each sentence adds a distinct fact (copy semantics, ID/editability, zero-delta edge case). Slightly dense phrasing ('translate the complete copied set by an explicit world-space millimeter delta') but no filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description establishes what is produced, what happens to sources, and the history/ID consequences — enough to call it safely. The missing revision/intent semantics are the main gap for a tool with two required parameters.

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 translationMm well (world-space millimeter delta, zero = coincident copies) and implies ids are body IDs, but revision (apparently a concurrency/version token) and intent are entirely unaddressed — 3 of 4 parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Create independent exact native copies of current Solid or Sheet bodies') plus the scope of the operation (copies are translated as a set). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling plasticity_create_instance and plasticity_duplicate_curves by explicitly saying the result is 'ordinary editable B-Rep bodies rather than linked instances'. An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'rather than linked instances' tells the agent when this is preferred over an instancing tool, and 'preserve every source' clarifies the non-destructive intent. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement of prerequisites or when-not-to-use (e.g., for curves, use plasticity_duplicate_curves).

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