duplicate_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Duplicate a scene file'. It doesn't mention overwrite behavior, dependency handling, path resolution, or other side effects, leaving significant ambiguity for an unannotated 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 five-word sentence with zero filler, making it perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary.

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?

Although the tool is simple and the schema fully documents the parameters, the description omits critical behavioral context such as overwrite behavior, whether dependencies are copied, and whether the destination must not already exist. With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the tool's operational semantics unclear.

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 covers both parameters (source and destination) with descriptions and minLength constraints, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Duplicate a scene file' clearly identifies the verb (duplicate) and resource (scene file), distinguishing it from sibling tools like duplicate_resource and clone_node. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or scope, so it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 duplicate_resource or editor_duplicate_asset. It doesn't mention prerequisites, conditional use cases, or when not to use it.

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