editor_duplicate_actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the result is the duplicate's 'live details'; it says nothing about whether the source actor is untouched, how the duplicate is named, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens if the target scene/parent is invalid.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no padding, front-loading the action and resource. Efficient, though it could have spent the saved space on parameter or usage detail.

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 output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but for a 7-required-parameter mutation with nested transform objects and an ambiguous nullable sceneId/parentId pair, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer on its own.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 required parameters, so the schema gives only types and names. The description does not explain any of them, and critically does not clarify the required-but-nullable sceneId/parentId pair (presumably pass one and null the other) or how translation/orientation/scale are interpreted relative to the parent.

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 ('duplicates') and resource ('a loaded actor') plus the destination ('into a loaded scene or parent'), which differentiates it from editor_create_actor (create new) in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the duplicate-vs-create distinction is inferable.

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?

Implies the prerequisite that both source actor and destination scene/parent must already be loaded, and the verb 'duplicates' hints at the use case. However, it never states when to choose this over editor_create_actor or editor_reparent_actor, nor any exclusions.

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