duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it explains that linked=true shares mesh data, specifies rotation order around world X, Y, Z axes, and defines the default pivot as the copy's bounding-box centre after offset. It still omits side effects such as whether the original is selected, what is returned, and any naming-collision behavior, but the key non-obvious semantics are disclosed.

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 with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by linked-mesh behavior and rotation/pivot semantics. Every sentence 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?

Given 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers the most complex geometric behavior well but does not explain the required `name`, the `new_name` parameter, selection/return behavior, or how this relates to alternative duplication tools.

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 compensate. It meaningfully defines offset, linked, rotate_deg, and pivot, but leaves the required `name` parameter and `new_name` entirely unexplained. Partial compensation for half the parameters.

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') and resource ('an object') and describes the copy's movement. Clear purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby duplication-like siblings such as array, radial_array, or mirror, so sibling differentiation 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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. It never says when to choose duplicate instead of array, radial_array, mirror, or other copy-producing tools. Usage is only implied by the parameter explanations.

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