Copy elements

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds substantial context beyond that: originals are preserved, copies inherit settings/story/layer/properties, host-dependent elements (windows/doors, openings, group members, associative dimensions) are created along with the copies, and internal group handling suppresses group membership by default. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Purpose and the originals-stay constraint are front-loaded, then behavior, then the sibling reference. The long return-value enumeration is verbose, but since there is no output schema it is doing necessary work rather than padding.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics (vector, count), side effects (dependent/associative elements created), group handling, and fully enumerates the return shape including createdGroups, additionalCreated, subElementsCreated and warnings. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further with a concrete worked example ('10 columns every 6 m: vector {x: 6, y: 0}, count 10') that makes the count-times-vector semantics intuitive, and clarifies that copies retain all original properties. It adds real meaning over the schema text, though much of the count/vector behavior is already documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Duplicates elements of ANY type') and immediately anchors it to the GUI operation 'Edit > Move > Drag a Copy' with the key constraint that 'the originals stay'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling copy_elements_to_stories, so an agent can pick the right copy tool without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly routes cross-story duplication to copy_elements_to_stories and explains the count>1 array pattern with a worked example, giving clear context for when this tool applies. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs move_elements or create_elements), so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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