Duplicate source

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions that settings are preserved and that scene/new name are optional. It does not explain what happens on name conflicts, whether the original is affected, or what the confirm flag does. These are significant gaps for a duplication tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb 'Duplicate' and includes all essential optionality in a compact, well-structured form. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

Even though there is an output schema, the description fails to address critical runtime behaviors such as the role of confirm, behavior when scene_name refers to a nonexistent scene, and potential name conflicts. Given the four parameters and absence of annotations, this is insufficient for reliable tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that new_name and scene_name are optional via 'optionally under a new name' and 'optionally into a scene', but it does not explain the confirm parameter or the meaning of source_name beyond the tool name. This leaves half the parameters semantically unexplained.

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 verb 'Duplicate' and the object 'a source with its settings', and explicitly mentions optional scene and new name, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_scene and create_source. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when the confirm parameter is needed. It simply states the action without conditional advice, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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