duplicate_actor

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the main action and optional effects (offset, new label), which implies the original actor is unchanged. However, it does not mention return values, whether the duplicate is selected, error conditions (e.g., missing label), or potential side effects. The description is not misleading, but it lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and mentions all optional behaviors without extraneous words. It is concise and clear.

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 description covers the core operation and parameters, but given the absence of annotations and an output schema, it should provide more context about the result (e.g., what is returned or changed), error behavior, or selection state after duplication. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: 'label' as the actor to duplicate, 'offset' as a world location offset, and 'new_label' as an editor label. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not specify the exact format or units for the offset beyond 'world location'.

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 uses a specific verb ('duplicate') with a resource ('actor') and clearly identifies the target by label. It also distinguishes this from siblings like 'delete_actor' and 'spawn_actor' by the action and optional behaviors.

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 implies usage: duplicate an existing actor. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'spawn_actor' for creating new actors or 'delete_actor' for removal. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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