clone_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the core behavior (duplication) and one behavioral nuance (position is retained if not set), but does not disclose other relevant traits such as whether target_path must be unused, whether the clone is deep or shallow, or what happens on conflict.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a scannable argument list. Every line adds value, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple clone operation with only two required parameters, the description is largely complete: it defines the source and target paths and the optional position behavior. The unexplained command_id and idempotency_key are a minor gap, but an output schema exists and these are likely standard platform parameters.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so manual documentation is essential. The description meaningfully explains three parameters (source_path, target_path, position), including the default behavior for position. However, command_id and idempotency_key are left unexplained, leaving part of the schema undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Duplicate an existing object to a new prim path.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like create_object, delete_object, and transform_object, even without naming them.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The summary makes it clear that this tool is for duplicating an existing prim, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives like create_object, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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