streamlabs_duplicate_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the copy is independent, but does not disclose whether the original is modified, what settings are copied, permissions needed, or what the function returns. The minimal wording leaves key behavioral traits unexplained.

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 that front-loads the action and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose but misses important contextual details such as what happens after duplication (e.g., location of new copy, naming, return value). The absence of an output schema makes this gap more significant, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at a minimal viable level.

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 one parameter, sourceId, with no description and zero coverage. The description does not explain that sourceId is the ID of the source to duplicate, nor does it add any detail about the parameter's purpose or constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description offers no additional semantic value.

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 source'), and specifies that the result is a new independent copy. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_source, since none of the siblings handle duplication.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_source or clone-like operations. It only restates the action without providing context, exclusions, or alternative scenarios.

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