duplicate_scene_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the duplicate preserves transform/crop and can target a different scene, which is useful. However, it does not specify whether the source is referenced or copied, what other properties are duplicated (e.g., filters, enabled state), or what the tool returns. This is partial but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean Args block. No filler or redundant text, and the core action 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return value and side effects. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the new scene item ID) or any failure conditions. Although the parameters are well described, the missing result information leaves the description incomplete for an agent that needs to chain operations.

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 provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter: scene_name (current scene), scene_item_id (numeric ID), and destination_scene_name (target scene, defaulting to source). This completely compensates for the schema gap and adds precise 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 clearly states 'Duplicate a scene item, copying its transform/crop, optionally into a different scene.' It identifies the specific action (duplicate) and resource (scene item), and the detail about copying transform/crop distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_scene_item or set_scene_item_transform.

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 provides clear context by indicating the tool is for duplicating an existing scene item and optionally moving it to another scene. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_scene_item or mention exclusions, so it lacks the full when-not-to-use guidance required for a 5.

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