duplicate_model

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint: false) but not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds useful context by stating the tool returns the scene and that layout should be run afterward. However, it does not disclose whether the original model is preserved or whether a new model ID is created, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 provide the essential behavior, return value, and required follow-up action with no wasted words. The structure front-loads the core purpose before the operational tip.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what action to take, what is returned, and what should happen next. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that `model_id` must reference an existing model, but this is reasonably inferred from the tool name and sibling context.

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 only 33%, with model_id lacking a description. The description adds some meaning by explicitly tying `count` to the duplication behavior, but model_id semantics are not addressed. scene_id is already covered in the schema, so the description only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Make') and resource ('copies of a model'), exactly matching the tool name while adding the count behavior and return value. It is clearly distinguished from mutation siblings like update_model, replace_model, and delete_model.

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 explicit follow-up guidance: 'Run auto_layout or auto_pack afterwards.' This tells the agent when and how to proceed after duplication. It does not name alternative duplication tools, but no direct sibling alternative exists, so the guidance is sufficient.

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