duplicate_frame_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core action (duplicate and append) but does not mention side effects like file modification, whether the original frames are unaffected, or if the tool is destructive. The transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 concise with a clear one-sentence action summary followed by structured parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no nested objects), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It could be improved by mentioning that it modifies the file, but it is generally complete for correct invocation.

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?

The description provides detailed parameter explanations beyond the input schema (which only has titles and types). It clarifies that start_frame and end_frame are 1-based and inclusive, and that times has a default of 1. This compensates for the 0% schema description 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 clearly states the action 'Duplicate a frame range' and specifies the result 'append copies to the end'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'copy_frame' which operates on a single frame, making the purpose 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 implies the tool is for duplicating a range of frames and appending them, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copy_frame, add_frames). No exclusion criteria or context is given.

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