duplicate_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one important trait: linked=True makes the copy share mesh data with the original. However, it leaves other copy semantics implicit (e.g., what happens when linked=False, whether modifiers/materials are copied) and gives no safety or side-effect context.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the linked modifier is placed where it is most likely to be considered.

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?

The description covers the core duplicate action and the linked option, but for a mutating tool with no annotations it leaves usage guidance and full copy semantics unspecified. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explaining, but the description is still thin on operational context.

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. It explicitly explains the linked parameter's effect, which is useful, but it does not describe name or new_name beyond what their names imply. The compensation is partial rather than complete.

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 the specific verb-plus-resource phrase 'Duplicate an object,' which immediately identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_material and copy_modifiers. The conditional clause about linked duplication adds a precise behavioral scope.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as create_object, duplicate_material, or copy_modifiers, nor does it state criteria for choosing this tool over those siblings.

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