blender_object_duplicate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to carry it. 'Duplicate an object' does not state whether the original is modified, where the duplicate is placed, how auto-naming works, or what consequences the linked parameter has on scene behavior. 'Duplicate' weakly implies a non-destructive copy, but nothing is explicit.

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 three words with zero waste and is front-loaded. However, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness — it essentially restates the tool's name without contributing additional decision-making value.

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 tool with behavioral nuance (linked vs. independent duplication) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. Key gaps include naming conventions, placement of the duplicate, and when linked mode is appropriate. The 100% schema coverage mitigates parameter ambiguity but not the behavioral gaps.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already documents all three parameters adequately, including the linked boolean ('Create a linked duplicate (shares mesh data)'). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema carries the load.

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 ('an object'), which is distinct enough from sibling tools like blender_object_create, blender_object_delete, and blender_object_transform. However, it adds little beyond the tool name itself and does not clarify the scope of duplication (e.g., whether child objects or modifiers are included).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when a linked duplicate is preferable to an independent copy, nor any distinction from blender_object_create or blender_collection_instance. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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