duplicate_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It simply says 'Duplicate a scene' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether a new scene is created, whether the original is preserved, how the duplicate is named/positioned) or any error conditions. This is nearly devoid of behavioral 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 very concise and front-loaded with the core action. The parameter explanation is also short. No unnecessary words are present, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral details.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide complete context on its own. It does not explain what happens after duplication, whether the operation succeeds silently, or what the agent should expect. Given the simple single-parameter signature, a bit more context (e.g., 'Creates a copy of the scene at scene_index') would make it viable.

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 schema provides no description for scene_index (0% coverage), so the description's line 'The index of the scene to duplicate' adds essential meaning by identifying what the parameter refers to. However, it does not specify indexing conventions (0-based vs 1-based) or how to obtain a valid index, leaving some gaps.

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 scene' with the specific resource (a scene). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_scene, delete_scene, and fire_scene, and aligns with the duplicate_clip/duplicate_track pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly explain what duplication entails (e.g., creates a new scene), which would make it 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of how it differs from create_scene or duplicate_track, nor when it should not be used. The only implicit usage is 'if you need to duplicate a scene,' which is not enough for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.

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