ue5_duplicate_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool copies an asset to a new location, but does not disclose whether an existing destination is overwritten, what permissions are needed, whether the operation is reversible, or any other side effects. This is a significant gap 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 front-loaded with the core action, then a brief use case, followed by an Args section with examples. It is appropriately sized and structured, though the first two sentences overlap slightly ('Duplicate' and 'Copies'), which is minor redundancy.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and parameter examples, but with no annotations it should ideally state overwrite behavior or permissions. It is minimally adequate but leaves behavioral 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must provide parameter meaning. It does so by naming both `source_path` and `dest_path` and giving concrete example paths for each, which clarifies expected format and intent. It does not add constraints like whether paths must exist, but this is adequate for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('UE5 asset'), and clarifies the copy is from source to destination. It adds examples of asset types (MetaSounds, Blueprints, SoundWaves), making the action unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ms_save_asset or bp_list_assets.

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?

It says the tool is 'Useful for cloning existing assets as starting points for modification,' which implies a use case. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating an asset from scratch or using a template), nor does it list any exclusions or prerequisites.

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