duplicate_clip

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is not read-only but also not declared destructive. The description adds that the duplicate is placed at the same position on the next available track, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like track creation or permissions required. With annotations covering basic safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. No redundant words; every part earns its place. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior well. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., track availability) or return value, but these are minor gaps. The description is complete enough for typical usage.

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% for the single parameter 'node_id', which includes its own description. The description does not add any further meaning (e.g., how to obtain the node ID). Per guidelines, high coverage sets baseline at 3, and no extra info is provided, so score remains 3.

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 clearly states 'Duplicate a clip on the timeline' with the specific behavior 'copy to same position on next available track'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the unique aspect of duplication, distinguishing it from other clip operations.

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 implies when to use (when you want a clip duplicated at the same time position on a new track) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Given the large sibling list, some guidance would be helpful, but the purpose is clear enough for basic use.

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