duplicate_clip_loop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core action (duplicating loop length, notes, and envelopes) and conditional behavior for non-looped clips, but fails to address critical aspects such as whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly explain the tool's function and a conditional case. Every word earns its place, there is no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the primary action. The structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation on clips with conditional behavior), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It covers the basic action but omits critical details like side effects, error conditions, return values, and how it interacts with sibling tools. The description does not adequately compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (clip_id) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description does not mention the clip_id parameter at all, offering no compensation for the lack of schema documentation. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the tool's purpose inherently implies the parameter is a clip identifier, but explicit guidance on format or constraints is missing.

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 the tool's function with specific verbs ('makes twice as long', 'duplicates notes and envelopes') and identifies the resource ('clip'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'duplicate_clip_region' or 'duplicate_clip_to_track' by focusing on loop-specific duplication rather than spatial or track duplication. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives for comparison.

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 usage for looped clips ('makes the loop twice as long') and provides a conditional for non-looped clips ('duplicates the clip start/end range if the clip is not looped'), giving some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'duplicate_clip_region' or 'crop_clip', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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