duplicate_clip

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The phrase 'Duplicates a clip' implies a mutation but does not disclose side effects, return values, or whether the original is modified. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence that is immediately understandable. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the core action without any fluff.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description could still be more informative. It omits any mention of what happens after duplication (e.g., selection, return value) and does not mention the default placement behavior of the duplicate, which is left entirely to the schema. The description is minimally adequate but not contextually complete.

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% (both clipId and offset have detailed descriptions). Per the rubric, this yields a baseline of 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema.

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 'Duplicates' and a clear resource 'a clip', with scope 'on the timeline'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'duplicate_sequence' or 'copy_effects_between_clips'.

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 usage is implied by the clear purpose; an agent knows when to invoke it. However, there is no explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, so it falls at the baseline for implied usage.

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