copy_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the core action. It does not disclose what happens when target_frame is omitted, whether overwrite truly replaces existing cels, or how cel properties like position and opacity are preserved.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is slightly too terse to be fully helpful, but it earns its place and avoids redundancy.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description leaves too much unstated. An agent cannot confidently determine how to trigger append versus overwrite, or what behaviors to expect when copying into an existing frame.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies the roles of source_frame and target_frame. It does not explain filename, overwrite, or the optional nature of target_frame for the append behavior.

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 operation—copying all cels from one frame to another—which clearly distinguishes it from single-cel tools like copy_cel. It also includes the append-a-new-frame option, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related frame/cel tools such as add_frame, duplicate_frame_range, or propagate_cels. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer appropriate usage.

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