clone_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the fact that a copy is made. It does not say where the duplicate lands (project panel, bin, active sequence), whether the clone becomes the active sequence, or what happens to the name if newName is omitted.

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 single three-word phrase is front-loaded and wastes nothing, which is good structure. But its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented, the description should explain side effects and return behavior but does neither. The clone does not appear in the general resources after the call, so the description is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 only 50%: the 'sequence' parameter is annotated with a default of active, but 'newName' has no schema description and the description adds nothing about naming behavior, defaults, or whether a copy is auto-named when it is omitted. With zero required parameters the agent gets no guidance on the minimal valid call.

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?

"Duplicate a sequence" states a specific verb (duplicate) and resource (sequence), so the agent knows the core action without opening the schema. However, with siblings like create_sequence, create_subsequence, and duplicate_clip in the toolset, the description does no work to distinguish a sequence clone from those alternatives.

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 when-to-use context is given at all: nothing says whether to clone instead of using create_sequence, creating a subsequence, or duplicating individual clips. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the terse name.

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