duplicate_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a copy is created and that it can optionally be moved, but it does not mention side effects such as whether the original is affected, whether the copy shares data (though 'linked' param exists in schema), or any undo behavior. The description is not misleading but is minimal 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the key optional behavior. Zero filler, efficient and to the point.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the new object's name), nor does it clarify the two undocumented parameters (new_name, collection) or the exact semantics of 'moving the copy' beyond the schema. An agent calling this tool would have to rely on schema alone for most details, which is inadequate for a multi-parameter operation.

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 description coverage is 75% (6 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema; 'optionally moving the copy' hints at offset/location but these are already documented. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 states a specific verb ('Duplicate') and a resource ('an object'), and the optional moving of the copy adds a clear scope. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_object, translate_object, or create_cube. The action is unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to duplicate an object. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident enough that an agent can infer usage without confusion. No misleading guidance is present.

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