object_clone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that clones are true <use> links and that a duplicate operation exists, but it omits the file-based input/output workflow, side effects on output files, and behavior when keep_source is used. For an unannotated tool with mutation potential, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is one dense sentence with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. It earns its place by conveying the key distinction from Inkscape actions in very few words.

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?

This is a 12-parameter, file-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate heavily. It does not explain the input/output file flow, the exact operation values, or what happens with keep_source, and it leaves an agent to infer essential call semantics from parameter names alone.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds modest context by indicating what the operation parameter likely offers—tiled cloning and duplicating—but it does not provide exact valid values or explain how geometric params combine to shape the result.

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 identifies the tool's core operations—creating tiled clones as real <use> links and duplicating objects—and notes that these are not available as Inkscape actions, which helps set expectations. It is not a tautology, though it is telegraphic and does not explicitly contrast with sibling object tools.

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 phrase 'Neither exists as an Inkscape action at all' implies this tool exists to fill gaps where action_run/action_find would not help, but it never names alternatives or states when to choose object_clone over sibling tools such as object_transform or object_arrange. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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