duplicate_clip

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

The description adds that the tool supports a planning mode in addition to execution, which is not present in the annotations. However, it does not describe side effects like whether an occupied destination slot is rejected or overwritten, or the exact state mutation behavior. Since annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds some but not rich context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and target clearly. However, it may be too terse to convey the full workflow, but for purpose clarity it is efficient.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the two-phase invocation (dry run then confirm), the role of expectedStateVersion, or the outcome of the operation. The agent must infer the workflow from parameter names and descriptions, which is risky.

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 already describes all seven parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor semantic context by specifying the source must be 'occupied' and destination 'empty', which clarifies the meaning of clipId and destinationClipId, but does not explain the dryRun/confirmationToken interaction.

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 action ('Plan or duplicate') on a specific resource ('an exact occupied Session clip') with a destination condition ('into an exact empty slot'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like duplicate_clip_loop and duplicate_arrangement_clip, which target different resources or modes.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as duplicate_clip_loop or duplicate_arrangement_clip, nor does it explain the prerequisite of planning before execution. 'Plan or duplicate' hints at a workflow but does not specify required steps like dryRun first.

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