obs_scene_item_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety/side-effect burden and does this well: it discloses that the duplicate references the same underlying source, that this duplicates audio playback, and that OBS allows duplicate placements of the same source. It also clarifies that transform/crop/blend are copied, which is not inferable from the schema.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence core operation, followed by concise conceptual and caveat paragraphs. Every sentence adds non-obvious value; no filler.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers operation, use case, and side effects unusually well. The only notable omission is what the tool returns (e.g., the new item ID), which would help an agent chain follow-up operations on the duplicated item.

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 repeats optional toScene semantics but does not materially add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema entries.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Copy a scene item') plus the intact transform/crop/blend mode and destination options, so the tool's core action is unmistakable. The phrase 'clones the placement, not the camera' separates it from source-adding or source-duplicating siblings.

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?

It explicitly recommends this for building matching layouts and warns about audio-carrying sources producing doubled audio and no-deduplication behavior. It does not name a specific alternative tool or an explicit 'do-not-use' case, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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