ap_object_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core operation and result, but does not specify behavior for missing names, duplicate name conflicts, or whether children/materials are copied. This leaves some gaps.

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, direct sentence conveys the action, input, and output with no filler. The key information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: provide an object name and receive the new duplicate's name. It is adequate for correct invocation, although it omits edge-case behavior.

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 100% and the description reinforces that the parameter identifies the source object by name. It adds the return-value detail but does not add constraints like uniqueness, existence requirements, or naming conventions for the duplicate.

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 clearly states the action (duplicate), the resource (scene object), the selection method (by name), and the return value (the new object's name). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like ap_get_object or ap_object_set_transform.

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 intended use is clear: duplicate a scene object by name. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the operation is unique among siblings, so the ambiguity is minimal.

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