duplicate_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does state the core operation and return value. However, it does not disclose what happens when new_name is omitted, whether the new material is automatically assigned anywhere, or whether the original material is affected. For a simple duplication operation, this is minimally adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the operation and the return value with no filler. The action is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description is too thin. It captures the essential action but omits the meaning of the optional parameter, naming behavior, and any side effects, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never explicitly describes the `name` parameter as the source material or `new_name` as the optional target name. 'Returns the new material name' only vaguely hints at `new_name`, leaving both parameters underspecified for an agent relying on the description.

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?

'Duplicate a material' names a specific action and resource, making it clear this creates a copy of an existing material rather than creating or deleting one. It is distinct from nearby siblings like create_material, delete_material, and duplicate_object, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_material, delete_material, or other material-related tools. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions, leaving an agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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