duplicate_item

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

The description only mentions the return object, and the annotation already signals non-destructiveness. It does not disclose whether the duplicate is placed adjacent to the original, whether all properties are copied, or how selection state is affected—important behavioral context for an agent.

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 very short, front-loaded with the action, and the return line is structured. It contains no filler, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, this description is too thin. An agent cannot determine what the duplicate will look like, where it will appear, or how the indices relate to the operation. The missing behavioral details make it inadequate for confident 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 input schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the role of track_index and item_index or any indexing conventions. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no deeper meaning beyond what the schema names already imply.

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 states the action 'Duplicate' and the resource 'media item', clearly identifying what the tool does. It does not differentiate from siblings like copy_selected_items or paste_items, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy/paste or other item manipulation tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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