mat_duplicate

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description explicitly says 'deep copy' and 'without touching the original', clarifying that it does not mutate the source material. For a 'duplicate' tool the destructive hint is a bit odd; the description clarifies the operation is non-destructive to the source. Return value (new name) is stated. Minor gap: no mention of name collision behavior. Not a contradiction.

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?

Two short lines in both languages; front-loaded with the key purpose and safety guarantee (deep copy, original untouched). Every sentence earns its place. The bilingual duplication is justified for the target audience.

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 description plus 100% schema coverage covers the essential: what to pass in, what is returned, and the use case. The main missing piece is what happens on name collision (auto-renamed? overwrite? error), which would be useful for a material duplicate in a Max scene. No output schema, so stating the return value is good.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates that 'name' is optional and defaults to original + _copy, which the schema already says. It adds slight value by rephrasing the naming convention clearly in both languages. No extra parameter semantics beyond 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 (clone a material as a deep copy) and distinguishes itself from mat_rename in the sibling list without naming it directly. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling to differentiate from, but the intent ('derive variants without touching original') is clear.

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?

Tells when to use it: to create a variant without modifying the original. It doesn't name exclusions or explicitly compare against mat_rename or mat_delete, but the phrase 'without touching the original' implies the alternative is in-place modification (mat_set_*), which gives a clear use context. No explicit 'when not to use', so not a 5.

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