copy_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discharges most of it: it discloses that this is a deep copy, that edits to the original do NOT propagate, that the source is unchanged and stays visible, and that it returns {handle, name, volume}. It omits any permission/auth or rate-limit context, though those are weakly relevant for a local CAD operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line essence, followed by differentiation, use cases, and a per-parameter breakdown. It is a little long, and the parenthetical asides could be trimmed, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description documents the return object ({handle, name, volume} with types), the parameter defaults, and the non-propagation semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: handle is qualified ('must have a Shape'), placement is defined as optional absolute [x, y, z] mm with the omit-behavior spelled out ('copy coincident with the source'), and name gets a stated default ('<SourceName>_copy'). This adds real semantics beyond the bare types 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 ('duplicate') and resource ('shaped object'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling add_part by contrasting a static solid deep-copy against an App::Link. An agent can tell it apart from add_part, scale_shape, mirrored, and linear_pattern without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (add_part) and the condition that selects between them ('tracks the source' vs 'later edits do NOT propagate'), then gives two concrete use cases (seed a mirror/pattern, drop a standalone duplicate into an assembly). When-to-use and the nearest alternative are both covered.

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