duplicate_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that copies are placed onto free spots and default to the same plate, but it does not explain what happens if there are insufficient free spots, whether object settings are copied, whether the source object remains, or what the operation returns.

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 efficient sentence with the core action and default placement behavior front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the main action and placement semantics. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves important failure and result behavior unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives useful meaning for all three parameters: the object being copied, the number of copies, and the optional target plate, though it does not clarify plate indexing or the default plate value beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: copying an object a given number of times onto free spots. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from nearby siblings such as copy_object_settings or fill_plate.

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 default behavior of keeping copies on the same plate unless `plate` is given implies when the tool is useful. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like copy_object_settings, arrange, or fill_plate.

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