clone_object

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. It reveals that the operation creates new IDs, renames children to avoid collisions, and can target an existing component via parentName, which goes beyond the schema. This provides valuable transparency about the operation's side effects and scope.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value, covering the deep-clone scope and the optional parenting behavior without waste.

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 tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the main behavior, the scope of cloning, and the optional target placement. It does not describe the return value or error conditions, but those are either implied or covered in the schema.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it does highlight the optional parentName behavior. It does not introduce new syntax or format details.

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 tool deep-clones an object including all children, presets, states, and scripts, and specifies behavior such as generating new unique IDs and renaming children. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bulk_clone and add_object by emphasizing the deep-cloning aspect.

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: use this when you need to clone an object deeply into the same or a different cell, optionally as a child component. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like bulk_clone, nor when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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