Duplicate Objects

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add genuinely useful execution context: the operation runs in background mode without activating Illustrator and never uses Computer Use. It omits other relevant behavior such as whether the originals remain selected, whether duplicates inherit the source layer, or what is returned.

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, purpose front-loaded, zero filler or restatement of the title. Every clause contributes either the core action or distinct execution context.

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 output schema and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: it says what happens and how it executes. It leaves out sibling differentiation (duplicate_layer_tree), post-condition state (selection/layer of the new copies), and error expectations when a UUID is invalid or the target layer does not exist.

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 four well-documented parameters, including the coordinate_system enum with a full explanatory note and a pointer to get_document_info. The description repeats only the 'optionally offsetting' idea already implied by the offset parameter, adding no new semantic detail, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3 and the nested-object/enum documentation here is unusually thorough.

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 and resource ('Duplicate one or more objects') plus an optional behavioral nuance (offsetting the copies). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling 'duplicate_layer_tree', so an agent cannot immediately tell which duplicator applies to its case.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative 'duplicate_layer_tree' or of 'move_to_layer' for repositioning. The agent must infer scope from the tool name alone.

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