Array elements

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the naming/index behavior ('names may contain {i} and starts at 1'), which the schema does not, but omits whether originals are retained, permission prerequisites, reversibility, and what select_originals does for this mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the example list. Some minor filler ('and so on') and a slightly awkward trailing clause about names, but overall efficient.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with 43% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves a majority of parameters and the create/retain semantics undocumented. It is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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 43%, so the description is expected to compensate but largely does not. It clarifies the names template ('{i}', starting at 1), yet axis, vector, targets, and select_originals are unexplained, and 'along a grid' only vaguely implies how axis/offset/vector interact.

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 repeated copies of elements') plus the mechanism ('along a grid'), with concrete examples (windows, treads, spokes) that make the intent unmistakable. It edges toward distinguishing itself from sibling duplication tools, but never names the closest alternatives like bb_duplicate_elements.

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?

Provides a real when-to-use scenario ('build rows of windows, treads, spokes ... instead of placing copies by hand'), which is genuine context. However, it never routes the agent against sibling tools (bb_duplicate_elements, bb_mirror_elements, bb_transform_elements) that overlap, and gives no when-not conditions.

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