duplicate

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

Annotations already declare it a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: `linked=true` shares mesh data, rotation order is world X then Y then Z, and the default pivot is the copy's bounding-box centre *after* the offset. That ordering subtlety is exactly the kind of detail an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then progressively adding linked-copy, rotation-order, and pivot-default semantics. No filler, though the pivot sentence could be tightened.

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 6-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious transform behavior well. It omits what the tool returns (e.g. the new object's identifier) and the meaning of `name` vs `new_name`, which an agent calling this would plausibly want.

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 carry the burden, and it does for 4 of 6 params: `offset` (metres), `linked` (mesh sharing), `rotate_deg` (axis order), and `pivot` (world point, default bbox centre after offset). `name` and `new_name` are not explained, leaving the source-identification and copy-naming semantics to inference.

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 (copy/duplicate) and resource (an object), plus the two transformations applied to the copy. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like `array` or `mirror`, which also produce derived copies, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 guidance or named alternatives. Among ~90 siblings that also generate copies (`array`, `mirror`, `radial_array`, `scatter`), the description never says when to pick `duplicate` instead. Usage is implied by the parameter semantics only.

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