duplicate_session_object

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds the dual plan/execute behavior and the optional naming behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose that a dry run is required before execution, that confirmationToken is single-use, or what happens to the original object. The description doesn't contradict annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It's concise and doesn't waste words, though it could benefit from a brief note about the plan/execute workflow.

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 tool with 8 parameters and a two-phase plan/execute workflow, the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't explain the dryRun/confirmationToken flow, which is critical for correct invocation. However, the schema covers most parameters, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The lack of an output schema means the description could have explained what the plan response looks like, but it doesn't.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the meaning of 'name' (for a duplicated track) and clarifies the plan/duplicate dual mode, but it doesn't explain the relationship between dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Plan or duplicate') and resource ('track, Session scene, or clip'), and mentions optional naming of a duplicated track. It distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings like duplicate_clip and duplicate_arrangement_clip, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies a two-phase workflow (plan via dryRun, then execute with confirmationToken) through the schema, but the description itself doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives like duplicate_clip or duplicate_arrangement_clip. The dryRun/confirmationToken mechanism is only implied by parameter descriptions, not explained in the tool description.

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