copy_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that copies inherit bed and settings and that `arrange` re-arranges beds afterwards, but says nothing about whether a job must be open first, whether copies get new ids/names, how objects are resolved on failure, or what happens to selection state.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args block is terse. The Args entries are not pure restatement of the schema, so they earn their place, though the numbered-list formatting is slightly noisy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but this is a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and the description omits preconditions (open job), side effects beyond `arrange`, and failure modes. For a copy operation that duplicates geometry, the description is thinner than the operation's complexity warrants.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add real meaning for all three params: `objects` accepts ids or names (the schema only says array of strings), `count` is copies of each (implying per-object duplication), and `arrange` re-arranges beds afterwards. The notes are terse and don't cover what `count: 0` does or how name/id collisions are handled, so it only partially closes the gap.

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?

"Add copies of objects (same bed, same settings)" names a specific verb and resource and clarifies the copy inherits placement and settings, which distinguishes it in spirit from add_model or move_to_bed. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus add_model, transform, or move_to_bed, nor any prerequisites for calling it. Notably, the sibling tool `arrange` exists and the description mentions re-arranging as a side effect without ever saying when to use `arrange` directly instead.

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