duplicate_frame_range

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It conveys that the tool mutates by appending copies and that the selected frame range is inclusive, but it omits side effects, ordering guarantees, target-file requirements, and any response/return behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb carries the core meaning. It is efficient but slightly too thin to earn a 5 for a no-annotation mutation tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the definition supplies very little context. An agent can infer the basic operation from the name and schema, but it lacks guidance on when to use it, how copies are ordered, and what a successful call returns.

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 explain the four parameters. 'Inclusive... range' clarifies start_frame/end_frame and 'one or more copies' loosely maps to times, but filename is never mentioned and no format or ordinal semantics are given.

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 names a specific verb ('Append'), a specific resource ('inclusive animation frame range'), and the operation's effect ('one or more copies'). This distinguishes it from single-frame operations like copy_frame or destructive delete_frame, although it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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?

No sentence addresses when to use this tool instead of copy_frame, copy_cel, propagate_frame_to_range, or add_frames. The only context is the word 'Append,' which implies end-of-animation placement but provides no conditions or exclusions.

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