clone_timeline

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, closed-world mutation, so the description only needs to add context. It does add value by spelling out the full set of copied entities, which tells the agent the clone is deep rather than a shallow id change. However, it does not say whether the source timeline is left untouched, what happens on id collisions, or how expectedRevision conflicts are handled.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumeration of copied content is dense but earns its place by conveying the depth of the copy. It could be tightened only slightly.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema and no documented parameters, the description leaves too much out: it never explains the concurrency parameter, the request-tracking parameter, or whether the new timeline object is returned. An agent can call it, but cannot call it safely with expectedRevision or reason about the result.

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% across five parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It only weakly implies timelineId ("Duplicate an animation") and newId ("with a new timeline id"), and says nothing about sessionId, requestId (likely an idempotency key) or expectedRevision (an optimistic-concurrency guard) — the three parameters whose semantics an agent is most likely to get wrong.

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 uses a specific verb ("Duplicate") plus a precise resource (an animation/timeline) and enumerates exactly what is copied: keyframes, curves, modifiers, events and segments. This clearly separates it from create_timeline (which would start empty) and from clone_layer (which operates on a layer), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, create_timeline. An agent must infer from the word "duplicate" that this is the right tool when an existing timeline's content should be reproduced under a new id; nothing states prerequisites or exclusions.

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