editor_duplicate_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not explain overwrite behavior, path requirements, error handling, or side effects, leaving significant gaps 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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. The verb is front-loaded, and the phrase 'via editor filesystem' is efficiently used to provide context. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully guide use. It fails to specify path formats, constraints, or differences from similar duplication tools, making it incomplete for a tool with two required parameters.

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 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not explain the 'from' and 'to' parameters beyond implying a source and destination. While the parameter names are intuitive, the description adds no additional semantic value or usage detail.

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') and the resource ('a file'), with the contextual hint 'via editor filesystem'. This distinguishes it from resource-level duplication tools like duplicate_resource and duplicate_scene, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as duplicate_resource, duplicate_scene, or editor_move_asset. The description offers no context for selection or exclusions.

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