duplicate_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the effect of clearContents (true vs false) and implies the source is not modified, but it does not explicitly state that the original sequence is untouched. The behavior is clear enough for a copy operation, though a minor note about non-destructiveness could improve transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and uses clear formatting (bold for emphasis). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage scenario, and parameter behavior well. However, there is no output schema or mention of return value, so the user is left without knowing what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator or new sequence ID). Given the complexity of the operation and no annotations, a brief note on the return would improve completeness, but it's not critical.

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%: each parameter (newName, sequenceId, clearContents) has a description. The clearContents description is detailed, explaining the behavior for true/false and the default. The description adds helpful context about preserving settings, enhancing the schema-provided information.

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 clearly states the tool creates a copy of a sequence, and explicitly distinguishes it from create_sequence by noting that this method preserves frame rate, resolution, and track layout. This makes the purpose specific and well-differentiated from sibling tools.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool over create_sequence: 'the reliable way to auto-create a correctly-specced blank target, since create_sequence ignores frame rate.' It also explains the clearContents option for creating an empty copy, giving clear usage instructions.

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