copy_grade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only notes index base and track, but fails to mention non-destructiveness, error handling for invalid indices, or any side effects on source clip.

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 concise with two sentences plus arg documentation. It front-loads the purpose and is well-structured. Slightly more formal structure could improve readability, but it is efficient.

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 existence of an output schema, the description reasonably focuses on input parameters. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., clips must exist on track) and does not situate the tool among sibling grade operations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that source_clip_index and target_clip_indices are 1-based on video track 1, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not cover edge cases like empty target list or overlapping indices.

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 copies a grade from a source clip to one or more target clips, specifying that indices are 1-based on video track 1. This distinguishes it from sibling grade-related tools like apply_drx_grade or reset_grades.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to copy a grade vs applying a grade from a file). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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