Duplicate a selected pattern piece by its zero-based index and place the copy at specified X/Y offsets in millimeters, enabling quick replication for layout or design adjustments.
Duplicate a pattern piece at a given position.
Args: pattern_index: Zero-based index of the pattern piece to copy. x: X position offset for the copy (mm). y: Y position offset for the copy (mm).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| pattern_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the core operation (duplicate at an offset in mm) but does not mention whether the original is unchanged, if a new pattern piece is created, or any error conditions. The description is accurate and not misleading, but lacks depth beyond the obvious.
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 concise: a single sentence for purpose followed by a compact argument list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary content. Slightly more detail could be added, but it is efficient and clear.
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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters. However, it does not mention return behavior or prerequisites (e.g., pattern_index validity). Given low complexity, it is adequate but could be more complete regarding side effects or success indicators.
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?
The schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It clearly explains pattern_index as zero-based and x/y as offsets in mm, adding critical semantics beyond the schema's type and default values.
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 states the action 'Duplicate' on the resource 'pattern piece' and includes positional offsets. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_pattern, flip_pattern, and move_pattern_2d, as duplication is semantically unique.
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_pattern_2d or mirror_pattern. The purpose is implied through the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated. This is adequate for a simple operation but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.