object_duplicate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('duplicates') without explaining what happens after duplication: whether the duplicate is selected, where it appears (with offsets), if it inherits properties, or what the return value might be. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise - a single Korean sentence that directly states the tool's action. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's perfectly efficient in terms of word economy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets duplicated, where the duplicate appears, what properties it inherits, whether it becomes selected, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (graphic design/editing context), this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (objectId, offsetX, offsetY). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 '객체를 복제합니다' (Duplicates an object) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'object_duplicate'. It doesn't specify what type of object is being duplicated (graphic element, layer, etc.) or in what context. While it clearly indicates a duplication action, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'layer_duplicate'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when duplication is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from similar operations like 'layer_duplicate' or 'object_group'. The agent receives no contextual help for tool selection.

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