duplicate_keyframe

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly false, destructive false, idempotent false). The description adds real behavioral context by stating the original value is preserved and, via the listed return fields, that the write may not fully apply or save (applied, saved, save_error). This goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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 behavioral statement is front-loaded in one tight sentence, followed by the return shape. The long return-field list earns its place since there is no output schema, though it is slightly verbose relative to the concise opening.

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 6-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the operation and compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating return fields. Only the relationship to sibling keyframe-mutation tools is left unstated.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including the property_type enum values and channel_index default. The description reinforces source/dest time semantics but adds no syntax or format 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?

States a specific verb (clone) plus the resource (an existing key), the channel types it applies to, and the source/dest time semantics. 'Preserving the original value' distinguishes it from move_keyframe and add_keyframe_to_property_track, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the source-to-destination framing, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over move_keyframe or add_keyframe_to_property_track, and no preconditions (e.g., the source key must already exist). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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