duplicate_actors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action itself, without detailing side effects, whether original actors are unchanged, what happens with references, or any required permissions. It does not contradict anything (since there are no annotations), but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, front-loaded sentence of five words. Every word contributes to the core purpose. It is highly concise and structured optimally for quick parsing.

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 tool is a mutation (duplication) with no annotations or output schema, yet the description only covers 'what' and 'by name'. It does not explain the offset's role relative to the original actors, whether the operation returns new actor identifiers, or any behavioral expectations (e.g., whether originals remain untouched). For a mutation tool with no output schema, this is insufficiently complete.

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%: 'names' is described as 'Actor names or labels to duplicate' and 'offset' as 'Offset for duplicated actors'. The description's phrase 'by name' reinforces the names parameter but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents both parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Duplicate') and resource ('actors') with a clear qualifier ('by name'). It distinguishes the tool from the sibling tool 'duplicate_asset' by specifying actors as the target. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it does not state that to duplicate assets, one should use duplicate_asset. The only implied usage is that you need to know the actor names, but no explicit context or alternative references are provided.

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