Duplicate AutoCAD entities by a displacement vector and return the newly created entities.
Copy entities, offsetting the copies by a displacement vector. Returns the new entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handles | Yes | Entity handles (hex strings) | |
| displacement | Yes | [x, y] or [x, y, z] |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that copies are produced and that the new entities are returned, but it does not state whether the originals are left untouched, what happens with large handle sets, or any transaction/undo 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return behavior. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.
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?
An output schema exists so return-value details need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is nearly sufficient for this two-parameter mutation, with the only real gap being the lack of routing guidance against sibling copy/move tools.
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% and both parameters (handles, displacement) are documented in the schema, including the hex-string format and the [x, y]/[x, y, z] forms. The description adds the notion that displacement is applied to the copies, but nothing beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (copy) and resource (entities) plus the key mechanic (offsetting copies by a displacement vector) and the return (new entities). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as move_entities, offset_entity, or mirror_entities, so an agent must infer the distinction between copying and moving/offsetting in place.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite several plausible siblings (move_entities, offset_entity, mirror_entities). The agent must infer that this is the tool to pick when a duplicate rather than an in-place modification is desired.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.