duplicate_clip_loop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering mutability and safety. The description adds the 'Plan or duplicate' distinction, hinting at a dry-run/execute flow, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a new clip is created, whether the source is altered) or the confirmation token requirement beyond what the schema already states. Given the annotation coverage, the description provides modest additional behavioral 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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It has no fluff or redundancy, but it is so terse that it omits important usage context, which slightly reduces the efficiency of the definition as a whole.

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?

With six parameters, a two-phase plan/execute flow, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain when to use dryRun versus actual execution, the meaning of 'loop region', or the expected result of duplication. The schema covers parameters but not the operational context, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance to call the tool correctly without additional investigation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the meaning of dryRun or confirmationToken. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 clear verb (plan or duplicate) and a specific resource ('the current loop region of one exact clip'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_clip (whole clip) or duplicate_arrangement_clip. It is not a tautology and conveys the core action, though 'Plan or duplicate' is slightly ambiguous about the two-phase nature.

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 given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like duplicate_clip or duplicate_arrangement_clip. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or preferred usage context, leaving the agent to infer that it is for loop-region duplication without explicit routing.

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