smart_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'automatic' behaviors but does not explain side effects, whether the original is preserved, limits on counts, or how variations are applied. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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 a single concise phrase, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though 'smart' is somewhat promotional. It is appropriately brief for a high-level overview.

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?

The tool has three parameters including a complex nested options object, yet the description offers no details on return values, error cases, or practical usage. Sibling tools like mass_duplicate suggest a richer context is needed. The description is a teaser rather than a complete guide.

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 67% and the description maps loosely to options fields (namePattern, positionOffset, propertyVariations). However, it adds little beyond the schema's own property descriptions; it does not explain patterns or inter-parameter relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool performs duplication with automatic naming, positioning, and property variations, which distinguishes it from plain duplication tools like clone_object. However, it lacks a direct verb phrase (e.g., 'Creates multiple copies') and the word 'smart' is somewhat vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mass_duplicate or clone_object. The description implies use for variations but does not state exclusions or appropriate contexts.

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