fgui_duplicate_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a lot: preserved serialized properties/references/overrides, a new generated ID, append-to-end placement, and notably that the operation does not enter the Agent undo stack. What it omits is the failure surface — what happens if the target is locked or grouped, whether a document must be open first, and whether the append position is reversible.

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 constraint-heavy opening and the offset/geometry sentence are front-loaded and every clause carries information; nothing is filler. The final line jams three unrelated behaviors (save scope, external_reload precondition, verify semantics) into one run-on sequence, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 description covers the mutation, persistence, and verification semantics that an agent needs to call it safely. The remaining gap is the undocumented target-selection parameters, which leaves ambiguity about how the source object is actually identified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 9 parameters and only partially does: dx/dy (offset from source, default in-place, toward-zero truncation with rounded return), save (saves the whole document), and external_reload (needs save=True) are explained. The target-selection trio object_id/object_name/object_path is never described — notably whether they are alternatives or combined — and the 'name' parameter is unmentioned entirely.

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 an unlocked, ungrouped normal object under a root component') plus a version gate (0.8.24+), which is far more precise than a bare 'duplicate'. The qualifier 'object' implicitly separates it from fgui_duplicate_package_item and fgui_duplicate_transition, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Gives real exclusion criteria — does not support groups or group members, and external_reload requires save=True — so an agent can rule itself out. It never names a fallback tool for the excluded cases (e.g. for duplicating a group), so the guidance stops short of full routing.

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