object.duplicate

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already imply. It does not say whether a copy is created, how naming conflicts are handled, whether the original object is changed, or whether a transaction must be open. 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' is an operational tag, not a disclosure of tool behavior.

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 text is short but under-specifying: it spends its three sentences on restating the command name and generic harness metadata rather than a useful purpose or usage statement. This reads as under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 7-parameter, scene-modifying tool with no behavioral or usage content, the description is far from complete in setting the output schema cannot compensate for not knowing what the tool does or how to identify the source object. The generic metadata does not give an agent enough to select and call the tool correctly.

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?

With 7 parameters and schema description coverage at 43%, the description should compensate by explaining the meaning of key parameters such as objectId, newName, and _expectedSceneRevision, but it says nothing about any parameter. The schema leaves source object identification and duplicate naming semantics unexplained, and the description does not fill that gap.

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 merely restates the command identifier `object.duplicate` and adds generic risk/maturity metadata; it never explicitly says that this tool duplicates a Blender object or identifies the source and target resources. This is close to a tautology of the title and gives an agent no basis to distinguish it from the many object_* sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related sibling tools such as blender_object_instance, blender_object_rename, or blender_object_create_mesh. The only requirements sentence, 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply,' is generic harness policy that applies across all tools and does not help with selection or invocation.

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