object-duplicate

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

No annotations are present)Skip. The description does not disclose what the tool does to the scene: whether the object is copied, whether settings are preserved, what the 'linked' parameter does at a behavioral level, or any side effects. This is a mutation tool with zero behavioral 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?

One sentence is technically concise, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. The description omits essential behavioral details that an effective description should convey.

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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no additional description, the agent is left to guess at semantics like linking behavior, offsets, and naming. This description is insufficient for reliable use.

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%. The description adds zero parameter documentation. The four parameters (name, linked, object, offset) have short titles but no semantic explanation beyond header names. No compensation from the description.

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 'Duplicate an object' uses a clear action verb and resource, so it at least names what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish duplication from related operations like object-create or object-transform_set, nor does it note the duplication's scope or behavior.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and the context signals include many object-related tools without any differentiation. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or notes on how 'linked' duplication differs from full duplication.

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