clone_prim

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive); the description adds real behavioral context by specifying the deep-copy semantics including children and the fail-fast refusal of an occupied target before any copying occurs. It stops short of describing what error is raised or whether partial state can occur mid-batch.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the atomicity guarantee. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 scene-mutating clone tool with a full parameter schema, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope (children included), batch support, and the key failure precondition. Only the error/return behavior on refusal is left implicit, which slightly limits completeness.

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% and the schema already explains count, offset, and both paths with examples, so the schema carries the load. The description's "Supports batch cloning" corroborates the count/offset parameters but adds no format or edge-case detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Deep-copy a prim (and all children) to a new path", which immediately tells an agent this duplicates rather than moves or creates-from-scratch. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling create_prim, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Provides one important precondition ("Refuses a target path that already holds a prim"), which is genuine usage guidance for choosing a target. However, it never says when to prefer this over create_prim or how it relates to other construction tools, so the when-to-use rationale is only implied.

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