Duplicate a figure

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the copy includes the pose, is offset so it does not overlap the original, and receives a new id. It does not mention permissions, undo behavior, or whether the original is left untouched, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct value: destination, frame selection, offset rationale, and identity behavior.

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?

For a simple duplication tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. The main missing piece is guidance on when to choose this over related figure tools, plus resolution of the frame-default discrepancy.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds rationale for the offset and a fallback for the frame parameter, but its statement that the playhead decides the frame potentially conflicts with the schema's claim that frame defaults to the figure's current keyframe, reducing reliability.

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 states a specific verb and resource: copy a figure, including its pose, into a keyframe. This clearly distinguishes it from figure_add (which adds a new figure) and figure_transform (which transforms an existing one).

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 explains how the optional keyframe and offset work, but it does not say when to use figure_duplicate versus figure_add or figure_transform. No explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are given.

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