bulk_duplicate_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the source is preserved and a new copy is created, and that it returns per-entry results plus aggregate counts. This covers key behavioral traits, though details like error handling or side effects are not fully expanded.

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, well-structured paragraph that efficiently communicates the core function, key differences, return format, and implementation detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return format, key behavioral differences from related operations, path constraints, and error handling. It is sufficiently comprehensive for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds value by explaining that dest_path is a full destination path (not a leaf name) and adding constraints about non-empty strings, no NUL byte, and no '..' segment. This enriches the schema.

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 'Duplicate multiple assets in one call' and distinguishes from siblings like bulk_rename_assets by explaining the difference in path handling. It also notes that it's a synthetic bridge-side handler, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 contrasts with rename/move by noting that duplicate does not leave a redirector and explains the dest_path vs new_name difference. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but could be more directive.

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