Duplicate Object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Duplicate a node' implies a write/mutation but says nothing about whether the copy is deep or shallow, how name collisions are resolved, required permissions, or whether the original is affected. These are meaningful gaps for a 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the core action first and the optional modifiers after. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers all parameters. However, for an unannotated mutation tool the description omits copy semantics (deep vs shallow, collision behavior), leaving the agent with only minimum-viable context.

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 100%, so all four parameters (node, name, parent, session_key) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the name/parent options but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Duplicate a node') and clarifies that the copy can optionally be renamed and reparented, which distinguishes it from the standalone rename_object and parent_object siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'optionally' implies combined rename/reparent behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like rename_object, parent_object, or create_primitive. The agent must infer that this is the one-shot copy operation.

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