duplicate_clip

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a clip is duplicated; it does not mention whether the original is preserved (though implied), where the duplicate appears beyond the schema's offset default, whether the clip is selected afterward, or any undo/selection side effects. It provides no behavioral context beyond the minimal action.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's core purpose.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient to invoke it correctly. However, there is no mention of return values, side effects, or preconditions, and with no annotations the description alone leaves an agent slightly under-informed about the operational context.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents clipId and offset, including the default placement after the original. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, but the high-coverage schema carries that burden, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and object ('Duplicates a clip') and anchors it to a resource ('on the timeline'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_sequence and consolidate_duplicates. Even without a title, an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as duplicate_sequence, consolidate_duplicates, or copy-based operations. The context is implied by the name and description, but no explicit when/when-not conditions are provided.

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