nhan_ban

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is a displaced duplicate, but says nothing about whether the original remains, what permissions are needed, whether the operation is undoable, or how the new object is identified/returned.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the unit clarification appended; no filler. It is efficient, though it omits information the agent actually needs, which is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, three parameters at 0% schema coverage, and an unexplained 'ten_moi', the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It never states what the tool returns or how the duplicated object is named.

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% and the description only clarifies one of three parameters: 'lech' is a [dx, dy, dz] vector in meters. The required 'ten' (source object name) and especially the optional 'ten_moi' (new name) are never explained, leaving a meaningful gap for a parameter that implies copy-naming behavior.

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 ('nhan ban mot doi tuong' – duplicate an object) plus the transformation applied (offset by a vector). An agent can tell this is a copy-with-displacement operation, though it is not explicitly distinguished from siblings like sua_doi_tuong or xoa_doi_tuong.

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 indication of when to use this versus editing an object directly, when not to use it, or what preconditions exist (object must exist, be selected, etc.). The only contextual information is the meaning of the offset argument, which is parameter semantics rather than usage guidance.

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