duplicate_object

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

The description only says 'copy', but fails to disclose behavioral details such as overwrite behavior, error conditions, or side effects. Annotations provide minimal safety info (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so description carries burden and falls short.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise.

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 lacks details on return values, error behavior, and edge cases (e.g., duplicate new_name). Given no output schema and minimal annotations, more completeness is needed for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the schema itself provides meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what is in the schema, so score is baseline 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'copy' and the resource 'object with a new name', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rename_object and remove_object.

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 when a copy is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like rename_object or add_object. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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