spine_duplicate_animation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation that creates a new animation, but does not state whether the source is preserved, what happens if the target name already exists, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions/errors are involved. The example adds useful intent but not enough operational detail 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?

A single short sentence front-loads the action and includes a compact, clarifying example. There is no wasted text.

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 annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the 'project' parameter, source preservation, overwrite behavior, or error cases. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but important behavioral context is still missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively illustrates the 'source' and 'name' parameters via the 'walk' -> 'walk-fast' example, but entirely omits the 'project' parameter. Two of three parameters gain meaning, which is useful 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 states a specific verb and resource: copying an animation under a new name. The example clarifies that this creates a renamed duplicate rather than merely renaming or adding a blank animation, which helps distinguish it from siblings like spine_add_animation. It does not explicitly name a sibling, 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 example 'before retiming it' implies the intended workflow: preserve the original by duplicating before making destructive edits. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no named alternative, and no statement about overwriting existing animations or when to use spine_add_animation instead.

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