duplicate_actors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and falls short. It doesn't explain what 'duplicate' entails (e.g., does it copy tags, transforms, bindings?), whether original actors are modified, or any side effects. The brief statement is minimally transparent for a tool that likely mutates the scene.

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 description is a single, short sentence that is immediately scannable. However, it may be too terse—while it earns points for front-loading, it sacrifices substance for brevity, as noted in other dimensions.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't clarify return behavior or side effects, and the presence of a nested 'offset' object suggests some complexity that isn't addressed. Given the rich sibling context (Unreal engine automation), more context about what 'actors' are in this tool's domain would help.

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 both parameters ('names' and 'offset') have descriptions in the schema. The description adds 'by name' which clarifies that 'names' refers to actor names/labels, but the 'offset' parameter is already self-explanatory. No additional semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 'Duplicate actors by name' clearly states the action (duplicate) and target (actors), and the 'by name' qualifier adds some scope. It's clear and specific, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings that might also duplicate since some sibling names like 'add_actor_binding' suggest related but different operations.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it duplicates actors, but there's no mention of prerequisites, position in a workflow, or why one might choose this over related operations like 'add_actor_binding' or 'spawn_niagara_attached'.

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