duplicate_composition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly implies duplication is a mutation (creating a new composition from an existing one). However, it fails to disclose side effects like whether the source composition is modified, what is duplicated (entire structure, only root?), or error states (e.g., dup of non-existent comp). This is baseline adequate but not thorough.

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 very brief at 3 words. This is efficient but borderline under-specified. In a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, a single sentence is too terse to be helpful; yet it avoids unnecessary fluff. It is structured well for quick scanning.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many sibling operations like create/modify composition and delete/layer ops), the description is minimally complete: it states the primary action but omits context about prerequisites, behavior on failure, and side effects. For a faithful agent, more details would improve safe selection.

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%, so each parameter's purpose is stated in the schema (compId, newName, compName). The description only repeats 'duplicate' without adding semantic nuance like whether newName is optional, or whether compId must be an existing composition ID. It adds no extra meaning 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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Duplicate a composition'. It expresses a single specific action, and though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_composition' or 'modify_composition', the duplication intent is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no context about prerequisites (e.g., the composition must exist), no hint about naming constraints, and no mention of when to prefer create_composition or modify_composition instead.

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