blender_duplicate_objects

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that the copy is 'independent', meaning changes to the copy will not affect the original, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose whether new objects are created in the scene, how collection assignment works, or any side effects. Given annotations, a 3 is appropriate—it adds some value but not extensive behavior disclosure.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and key nuance. It is front-loaded, avoids filler, and every word contributes to understanding. Length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity—no unnecessary detail 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 relatively simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core function but omits details like where duplicates are placed, how the collection parameter influences the operation, and what the response will contain. Given the low parameter coverage and absence of output schema, the description feels incomplete for an agent that needs to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 only 33% (only response_format has a description), and the tool description does not elaborate on any parameter. The description 'Duplicate objects' implies that the 'objects' parameter is the list to duplicate, but 'collection' remains completely unexplained—its role in placing duplicates is unknown. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving key parameters under-specified.

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 specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('objects'), and adds a key detail ('together with their mesh data (an independent copy)') that clarifies the scope and behavior. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, rename, or join, which are semantically different. No ambiguity about what action is performed.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a simple duplicate is needed versus using blender_run_operator or scripting. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The intended usage must be inferred from the action itself, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between tools.

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