duplicate_frame_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (duplicate and append) and parameter details (1-based, inclusive, default). However, it does not disclose potential side effects like frame shifting or whether original frames are preserved.

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 a single action sentence followed by a clean Args list. Each parameter is explained in one line. No redundant information, but the structure could be slightly improved by separating the overview from parameter details.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics adequately. It lacks details about return value or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that start_frame is 1-based, end_frame is inclusive, and times has a default of 1. The schema only provides types and titles, so the description provides necessary context.

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 resource 'frame range', specifying the action 'append copies to the end'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'copy_frame' (single frame) and 'duplicate_layer' (layer-level).

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. The description implies it is for duplicating a range of frames, but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with sibling tools like 'copy_frame' or 'add_frames'.

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