capcut_duplicate_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the duplicate gets 'fresh IDs' and is a 'new draft,' which implies non-destructive creation. However, it does not mention behavior on missing source projects, name collisions, or whether any existing media references are preserved.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, result, and use case efficiently.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a typical use case. Minor gaps around duplicate naming conflicts and return values do not prevent correct invocation.

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 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions ('Name for the cloned project' and 'Name or UUID of the project to copy from'). The description adds no meaningful param-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Duplicates') with a clear resource ('existing CapCut project') and outcome ('to a new draft with fresh IDs'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like capcut_create_project or capcut_get_project.

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 helpful context with 'ideal for creating variations or backups,' suggesting when an agent should use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude or compare it against alternatives such as capcut_create_project when starting fresh.

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