clone_sequence

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutating operation, yet it says nothing about what gets copied (clips, tracks, markers, settings, effects), where the clone lands, or what happens if newName is omitted or collides. Only the bare fact of duplication is conveyed.

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 sentence with no padding, which is efficient, but it is so terse that it lacks any structure or front-loaded detail beyond the bare action. Nothing is wasted, but nothing is added either.

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, no output schema, and no stated return value, the description leaves key behavior (what is duplicated, whether the clone becomes active, error cases) undefined. An agent can guess the call, but cannot predict the outcome.

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 100%, so both newName and sequenceName are already documented in the schema, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing beyond that, and notably does not explain the consequence of the optional fields being unnamed (required count is 0).

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?

Clear verb ('duplicate') plus resource ('sequence') tells an agent exactly what the tool does at a glance. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as create_sequence, create_sequence_from_clip, create_subsequence, or import_sequences, which is the only thing keeping it from 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 offers no guidance on when to use this instead of create_sequence, import_sequences, or create_subsequence, and no prerequisites (existing sequence required, name uniqueness). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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