duplicate_assets

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating duplicates stay in their current folders and that summaries are returned, but it does not disclose details like naming conventions, reference updates, or potential side effects.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key scoping detail and return behavior. Every word contributes useful 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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation and its return value. It could be more complete by explicitly explaining that 'ids' selects the assets to duplicate, but the schema and tool name make this reasonably inferable.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'ids' parameter beyond implying they are asset identifiers. The schema only provides 'Asset ID' on array items, so the description adds little semantic value for parameter interpretation.

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 identifies the action ('Duplicate'), the resource ('assets'), and the scope ('in their current folders'). It also specifies the expected return ('created asset summaries'), which distinguishes it from related asset operations like create_assets, move_assets, or delete_assets.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to duplicate assets while keeping them in their original folders. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternative tools such as move_assets or create_assets.

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