pr_duplicateSequence

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive local write, and the description reinforces this as a 'safe copy' with optional rename/open. It does not disclose what exactly gets duplicated (settings, media, markers) or what the tool returns, so with annotations present a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the purpose first, useful parenthetical context, and no wasted words.

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 tool is simple and annotations cover safety, but with no output schema the description should say more about the duplicate's returned name/id and placement. Adequate for invocation, but with clear gaps for follow-up use.

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 only 33%, but the description maps newName to 'rename the copy' and open to 'open it', while the schema documents the sequence parameter. It lacks defaults or validation details, so not a 5.

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?

States the specific verb 'duplicate' and resource 'sequence', plus optional rename/open behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby sequence tools such as pr_openSequence or pr_createSequence, so it falls short of a 5.

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 parenthetical 'safe copy before big/destructive edits' gives a clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so 4 rather than 5.

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