clone_objects

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by clarifying that copy is independent, instance is linked, and reference is a reference, and that count>1 arranges clones by offset. The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutation, and the description does not contradict any annotation.

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 short, front-loaded with the core operation, and uses compact bilingual phrasing. The duplication between Chinese and English is slightly redundant for an AI agent, but it does not significantly bloat the text.

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 definition covers the main behavior, clone modes, and offset spacing, and the schema fills in parameter defaults and object selection defaults. There is no output schema, but for a scene-mutation tool with clear annotations and parameter documentation, the description is adequately 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?

The schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by giving semantic meaning to cloneType (independent/linked/reference) and explaining the relationship between count and offset (spacing behavior).

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 tool clones objects and defines the three clone modes (copy, instance, reference) plus offset spacing when count > 1. This is a specific verb+resource description with meaningful semantics, though it does not explicitly distinguish clone_objects from related siblings like array_objects or scatter_objects.

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 usage by explaining the clone-type semantics and spacing behavior, so an agent can infer when to use it for copies/instances/references. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as array_objects or scatter_objects, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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