duplicate

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

Annotations establish this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description meaningfully adds the placement rule (copy lands immediately after the source; a duplicated slot goes into the next scene), the return value (new address), and the unsupported cases. It stops short of noting permissions or what happens on invalid addresses.

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?

Three tight sentences: what can be duplicated first, then placement/return behavior, then the exclusion. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers accepted inputs, placement behavior, the return value, and the negative cases, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the schema already provides address examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some interpretable meaning (the N-index convention implied, and that scene addresses may use name: syntax) but largely restates the formats the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb (duplicate) and enumerates the exact resource types accepted (regular track, scene, clip slot) with their address forms. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create and convert, which an agent could otherwise confuse with duplication.

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 gives strong selection context by listing accepted address patterns and explicitly excluding return tracks and the master, which prevents wasted calls. It does not, however, contrast this tool against the sibling 'create' or explain when duplicating is preferred over creating fresh.

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