screenstudio_project_duplicate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that by framing the operation as a copy that preserves the original. It still omits important behavior: what happens if destinationPath already exists, whether it overwrites or fails, and whether the whole bundle (media included) is copied.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action and its purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing needs to be trimmed and nothing is buried.

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 two required params, no output schema, and a low-complexity operation, the description covers the core intent but is silent on collision behavior, return value (e.g. resulting project path), and whether the copy is deep or shallow. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, not fully complete.

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% for both parameters, so the description must carry the load; it partially does. 'Project bundle to a fresh destination' implies projectPath is the source bundle and that destinationPath should be a new/non-existing location, which is added meaning beyond the bare minLength:1 schema. It does not clarify path formats, relative vs absolute, or copy semantics.

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 gives a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('project bundle') plus the destination concept, so the operation is immediately identifiable. It does not name or contrast with any sibling such as screenstudio_editor_save or screenstudio_editor_restore, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 clause 'to keep the original untouched' implies the intended scenario — duplicating before making changes — which is genuine implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. editor_save vs duplicate) for an agent to route between.

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