duplicateClip

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-readonly, closed-world operation, and the description adds substantial value on top: exactly what gets duplicated (footage, crop, source range, trims, zooms, speed regions, annotations, camera-fullscreen regions), the deep-copy independence property, and the returned clipId. It omits permission/error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 action and placement are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the copy semantics and return value. It is dense with detail but nearly every clause earns its place; the long enumeration makes it slightly run-on.

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, the description correctly states the return value (the copy's clipId). Both parameters are accounted for across description and schema, and the copy semantics are fully explained, leaving only minor gaps like failure modes.

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 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, but clipId has no schema description. The description confirms clipId is the input (via 'returns the copy's clipId') but adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail for either parameter, so it only marginally compensates for the gap.

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?

States a precise verb (copy/duplicate) and resource (clip) with placement semantics ('placed right after it'), and distinguishes itself from moveClip, which repositions rather than copies. An agent can differentiate it from siblings like insertClip or moveClip without opening schemas.

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 makes the use case clear (get an independent copy of a clip and everything on it) and names moveClip as the alternative for repositioning. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, but the context for choosing duplication over editing is well implied by 'edits to one no longer touch the other.'

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