duplicate_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates duplication (creating new objects) but does not say whether the original is modified, how duplicates are named, or the effect of count values (e.g., zero or negative).

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?

A single, direct sentence with no filler. The verb is front-loaded, and every word adds value. Ideal 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 simple tool, the description establishes core function, but lacks usage guidance and mentions only two of three parameters. An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not necessary, but with no annotations and 0% schema descriptions, more behavioral and parameter context would improve completeness.

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?

The description gives meaning to 'count' (N) and 'source_ref' (source object), but does not mention 'name_prefix' or explain parameter defaults/behavior. With 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('GEOM duplicates') with a clear scope ('from one source object'). The mention of 'N' implies multiple copies, distinguishing it from sibling 'copy_object' which likely creates a single copy.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_object' or other transformation tools. The description only describes functionality without indicating preferred use cases or excluding scenarios.

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