duplicate_scene

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'copy' without detailing what happens on conflict, whether dependencies are copied, if the operation is reversible, or what the return value is. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and target, making it immediately parseable.

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?

Given the low schema coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about the operation's behavior. It lacks essential details such as overwrite semantics, whether the copied scene is independent, and error conditions, making the tool less predictable.

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 description adds meaning to sourcePath and destinationPath by qualifying them as 'project-relative .tscn paths', which the schema does not provide. This is crucial for correct invocation, though projectPath's semantics are already covered in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate there.

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 ('copy') and clearly states the resource ('a scene') and target ('another project-relative .tscn path'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_scene or save_scene. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_scene or save_scene. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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