duplicate-actor

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses strict resolution rules, per-actor non-fatal error handling, default and custom naming behavior, automatic folder creation, exact ownership override semantics, and GM-only access. This goes far beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 dense and front-loaded, putting the core purpose and sandbox use case first, then flowing through resolution, naming, folder, owner, and GM restriction in a structured order. It is slightly redundant in places ('full copies' vs. 'whole sheet travels') and could be trimmed, but every sentence still conveys useful information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 params, batch behavior, optional folder/ownership), the description covers the key operational details: copy completeness, strict resolution, error handling, naming, folder location, ownership override, and permission level. It does not mention the return value or potential rate limits, but for a duplication tool this is a minor gap, especially since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 during the initial. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the newNames/suffix fallback relationship, giving an explicit example ('(Sim)' → 'Gren (Sim)'), clarifying that folder creation is automatic, and specifying that ownership is replaced exactly to {default: NONE, user: level}. This pushes it above baseline.

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 precise action and resource: 'Clone one or more existing WORLD actors as full copies.' It specifies the full-copy scope (system data, embedded items, spells, effects, prototype token) and positions itself as the sandbox duplication tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-actor, export-actor, or create-actor-from-compendium.

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 gives a concrete use case ('clone PCs as "(Sim)" copies ... so a player can re-run a battle without touching the real sheets') and the prerequisite to 'look up with list-actors first.' It also clarifies when to omit folder/owner. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or situations where a different approach (e.g., creating a new actor from a compendium) would be preferable.

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