consolidate_duplicates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for what is effectively a destructive consolidation. It does not say whether duplicate source files are deleted from disk or only merged in the project, whether timeline clips referencing duplicates get relinked, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects missing behavioral detail rather than tight editing of a complete definition.

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?

A project-wide destructive merge with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters should explain scope, irreversibility, and expected result. The one-line description leaves the agent guessing at all three before committing to an irreversible operation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and the baseline is 4. The phrase 'in the project' is the only scoping information available, confirming the operation applies project-wide.

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 (merge) and a specific resource (duplicate media items in the project), and no sibling tool covers de-duplication, so an agent can distinguish it from relink_media or delete_project_items. It stops short of defining what counts as a duplicate (same filename, hash, media path), which leaves the scope slightly fuzzy.

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 on when to invoke this versus manually removing duplicates with delete_project_items, nor any precondition such as running it before export or after import_media. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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