cloneObject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic functionality. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether cloning preserves object properties, permissions required, if it's destructive to the original, rate limits, or what happens on failure. 'Duplicate' implies a write operation, but no safety or side-effect details are given.

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?

Extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('duplicate an object') and adds key constraint ('with an optional position offset'). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what properties are cloned, the format of returned data, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'updateObject'. The context signals show complexity (nested objects, 3 parameters), but the description lacks necessary operational details.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it mentions 'optional position offset' which aligns with the 'offset' parameter in schema, but doesn't provide additional context like units for offset or when to specify newId.

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 verb ('duplicate') and resource ('an object'), specifying it creates a copy with optional positioning. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createObject' (new from scratch) and 'getObject' (retrieve existing), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like 'copy' operations if they existed.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createObject' for new objects or 'copy' operations. The description mentions optional position offset but doesn't provide context for when offset is needed versus using default positioning.

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