duplicate_gameobject

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description adds 'Duplicates' and 'optionally with a new name', but does not disclose side effects like position, hierarchy, or component copying. Behavior is minimally transparent beyond annotations.

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, 11-word sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite simple duplication, the description omits details on parameter interaction (e.g., instanceId vs objectName conflict), hierarchy behavior, return values, and selection outcome. Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description only adds 'optionally with a new name', which aligns with the newName parameter but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Duplicates' and the resource 'GameObject', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'optionally with a new name', which sets it apart from tools like delete_gameobject or update_gameobject.

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 for duplicating a GameObject, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives or restrictions. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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