Clone Entity

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 well: it explains type-specific cloning behavior, copies VideoPosts and take overrides, describes default object placement, and states the return value. It does not discuss edge cases or potential side effects, but 'duplicate' strongly implies the original remains intact.

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?

Three dense sentences, each contributing distinct information: core operation, supported entity types, placement defaults, and return value. No filler or redundancy; the most important information 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 tool supporting many entity types with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: supported kinds, parent semantics, type-specific behavior, and return handle. It could go deeper on failure modes or whether object children are cloned, but it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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% and the parent parameter already has detailed per-type semantics. The description adds value by explaining the default placement behavior for objects and the option to pass parent to relocate the clone. This goes beyond the schema and helps an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 entity,' then enumerates the supported entity types (object, tag, material, shader, render_data, video_post, take) and their implementation paths. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_entity and move_entity.

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 clear context for when the tool applies: duplicating an existing entity across multiple supported types. It also clarifies default placement for objects and the ability to override via parent. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the duplication semantics are unambiguous enough.

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