duplicate_frame

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions the copy is inserted after the original, but omits side effects (e.g., does it preserve all properties? affect subsequent indices? require permissions?). Partially addresses behavior but insufficient for a mutation 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with main action. Very concise with no wasted words, but could benefit from separating parameter explanations.

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?

Minimal but covers essentials for a simple mutation. Lacks return value description and error conditions (e.g., invalid frame index). Adequate given tool simplicity but could be more complete.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'frame' (1-based) but not to 'filename', leaving ambiguity. Adds partial value but incomplete.

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 action ('duplicate'), the resource ('existing frame'), and the result ('copy is inserted after it'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_frame (which adds an empty frame) and remove_frame.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for frame manipulation (e.g., add_frame, remove_frame, set_frame_duration), the description lacks context for decision-making.

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