duplicate_scene

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Duplicate a scene' without disclosing behavior such as side effects, return value, or how the duplicate is inserted. This fails to inform the agent about mutation semantics or error conditions.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. It includes a parameter list that repeats the schema, but the formatting is clean and not excessively verbose.

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 only minimal parameter info, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what happens after duplication, whether the duplicate is returned, or how the scene index is validated, leaving important context missing.

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 only defines scene_index as an integer with no description. The description adds 'The index of the scene to duplicate', which clarifies its purpose but provides no additional constraints, format, or range information, so it only marginally compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Duplicate a scene' with a clear verb+resource pair. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like duplicate_clip or duplicate_track, but the resource 'scene' is specific enough for basic identification.

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 alternatives. The description provides no context about the resulting scene placement, whether contents are copied, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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