duplicate_object

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states 'Duplicate' without explaining how duplication works (e.g., copies data or references), what data (materials, animations) is preserved, or what the tool returns. The 'linked duplicate' concept is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient and does not waste words, though it lacks any structural elements like context or examples.

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 tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema that is not discussed, the description is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not cover essential details about the name parameter's target, linked behavior, or expected return value.

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 0%, and the description does not clarify the meaning of 'name' (likely the object to duplicate) or 'linked' (whether it creates a linked copy). No parameter details are spelled out, leaving the agent to infer from naming conventions.

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' and the resource 'an object', with an additional qualifier about linked duplicates. It is specific enough to convey the primary function, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_object or delete_object.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain when to choose linked vs. non-linked duplication. There are no exclusions or context cues about prerequisite conditions or typical use cases.

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