duplicate_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects like where the new scene is inserted, which properties are copied, or whether the operation affects the arrangement view. This is 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?

The description is extremely short but under-specified. The purpose sentence is redundant with the tool name, and the args section, while clear, is the only informative part. The brevity is due to omission rather than efficient choice.

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?

Despite having an output schema and one fully explained parameter, the description fails to explain the behavioral semantics of duplicating a scene. Nothing is said about the result placement, impact on session/arrangement, or undo behavior, making it incomplete for a mutating tool.

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 schema provides only a parameter title with no description (0% coverage). The description adds critical meaning by specifying 'Zero-based index', which compensates fully for the single parameter.

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 'Duplicate a scene' is a tautology of the tool name 'duplicate_scene', restating it without adding any unique meaning or differentiating from sibling tools like duplicate_track or duplicate_clip.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_to_arrangement or duplicate_clip. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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