duplicate_clip_to_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior (duplication) and a key precondition (empty slot). However, it does not explain whether the source clip is preserved, whether it creates a reference or copy, or any other side effects.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately follows with the critical precondition. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity (3 integers, no enums) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core operation and a crucial precondition. However, it lacks failure scenarios (e.g., what happens if destination is occupied), error handling, and does not leverage the output schema to describe return values.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. While parameter names ('track_index', 'source_clip_index', 'dest_clip_index') are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no detail about indexing (e.g., zero-based vs. one-based) or expected value ranges.

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 clearly states the action: duplicate a session clip from one scene to another on the same track. It distinguishes from siblings like 'duplicate_arrangement_clip' and 'duplicate_session_to_arrangement' by specifying session clips and scene-to-scene within a track.

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 includes a precondition ('destination clip slot must be empty') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'duplicate_arrangement_clip' or 'duplicate_session_to_arrangement'. No when-not-to-use or context for sibling differentiation.

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