duplicate_to_arrangement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying Live API (track.duplicate_clip_to_arrangement()), the destination placement in beats, and that the clip stays on the same track. It does not mention edge cases or side effects, but provides solid behavioral context.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by API/behavior, a three-step workflow, and parameter details. Every section adds value, and the front-loaded opening makes the tool's function immediately clear.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains all parameters, the API, and the integration with sibling tools in a workflow. It could be improved by mentioning whether the source clip is preserved or if any return value is expected, but it covers the essential context.

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 description includes a dedicated Parameters section that explains each argument in plain language, including examples for destination_time (e.g., 0.0 = start, 8.0 = bar 3 in 4/4). Since schema descriptions are absent, this fully compensates for the 0% coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Copy a Session-view clip into the Arrangement timeline.' It clearly states the core function and distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_arrangement_midi_clip, which creates a new clip rather than duplicating an existing one.

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 a clear workflow: build a Session clip, call duplicate_to_arrangement per bar/section, then switch_to_arrangement_view. It implies when to use the tool relative to other steps, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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