silhouette_duplicate_shape

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and non-idempotence, so the write/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the key behavioral fact that copies are created cumulatively offset by (dx_mm, dy_mm), but says nothing about whether new shapes are grouped, how they are named/selected, or what happens on partial failure.

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 well-formed sentence with zero filler; the core duplication behavior and the offset rule are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the offset math but not the two required parameters (design, shape_id), the unit assumptions beyond the parameter names, or what identifiers the caller gets back for the new copies. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the meaning of `count`, `dx_mm` and `dy_mm` (cumulative offset per copy), but leaves `design` and `shape_id` completely unexplained — no guidance on how to obtain a shape_id or whether design is a name, id, or path.

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 ('Duplicate') and resource ('an existing shape') plus the multiplication semantics via `count`. It is distinguishable from sibling creators like silhouette_add_circle or silhouette_grid_duplicates by specifying linear offsetting, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as silhouette_grid_duplicates (offset grids) or silhouette_offset_shape (single offset). The agent must infer that this tool is for repeated linear duplication rather than a grid or a single offset.

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