duplicate_entities

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

While annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds useful behavioral context: duplication includes children, placement is under the same parent, and it returns new entity summaries. The rename=true auto-suffix detail also clarifies name collision handling, though it stops short of describing side effects, transaction behavior, or failure modes.

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 four short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and placement, then mentions return value, the optional rename flag, and exclusions in a logical order. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and when not to use it. It could go deeper on edge cases like invalid entity IDs, partial duplication, or reference handling, but the combination of description, schema, and sibling context is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that rename=true causes auto-suffixing to avoid name conflicts and framing ids as 'existing entities,' which reinforces the schema's 'Entity resource_ids to duplicate'. This adds value beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 and resource ('Duplicate existing entities') and clarifies scope with 'including their children' and 'in place under the same parent'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from create_entities and template asset creation, making its purpose unambiguous next to siblings like create_entities and duplicate_scene.

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 includes an explicit 'When NOT to use' section naming two distinct alternatives: creating a reusable prefab across scenes (template asset) and building a brand-new entity (create_entities). This gives clear decision criteria for selecting this tool over the nearby create_entities and instantiate_template_assets.

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