Duplicate scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that sources are also duplicated and that a custom name is optional, adding value over the schema. However, it omits the 'confirm' parameter's purpose and any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 efficiently states the core functionality and a key option, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

The description covers the primary function and an optional behavior, but given there are 3 parameters and no annotations, it is incomplete. It misses the confirmation parameter and usage context. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed here, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly covers 'scene_name' (the scene to duplicate) and 'new_name' (custom name), but 'confirm' is completely unexplained. The description does not fully document all three parameters.

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's action: duplicating a scene and all its sources into a new scene. It distinguishes from sibling 'duplicate_source' by explicitly mentioning scene-level duplication with source copying, and the optional custom name is noted.

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 implies when to use this tool (to duplicate a scene with its sources) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like 'create_scene' or 'duplicate_source'. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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