ass_duplicate_lines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: copies preserve every source field (style, actor, effect, layer, margins, comment flag, tags), the operation is 'snapshot-backed' (implying undo support), and it returns a structured result. It still omits permission requirements, error conditions, and an explicit statement of reversibility, so it does not reach 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by args and then behavioral guarantees, so the agent gets the essentials first. The Args formatting is efficient and each line adds value, though the return-shape sentence is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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 4-parameter, 0%-schema-coverage, annotation-free mutation tool, the description covers params, field-preservation behavior, and snapshot backing, which is close to complete. The unexplained doc_id parameter is the main remaining gap.

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 documents three of four parameters with real semantics (selection = None means all lines; offset_ms shifts copies in time; insert_after toggles placement), which is far beyond the bare schema. Only doc_id is left unexplained, keeping it short of 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 a specific verb (duplicate) and resource (the selected lines), which cleanly separates it from creation-oriented siblings like ass_add_line/ass_add_lines and restructuring siblings like ass_split_line or ass_merge_lines. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, 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 description explains parameter behavior but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as ass_add_lines or ass_copy_style. An agent can infer intent from the verb but is given no routing logic.

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