edit_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the core behavior: a duplicate is created in a new track, implying the original is preserved. However, it does not state whether the selection is required, whether track properties like gain/pan/effects are copied, or whether the duplicate is independent of the source.

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 seven-word sentence delivers the verb, target, and outcome with zero waste. Every word earns its place, and the key action verb 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?

For a parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome. Minor gaps remain — preconditions (selection required) and post-conditions (track position, copied attributes) — but these are small for such a simple action.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this is appropriately handled — the description itself becomes the sole behavioral specification.

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 states a specific verb ('Duplicate'), a concrete resource ('selected audio'), and a clear result ('into a new track'). This distinguishes it from close siblings like edit_copy (clipboard copy) and edit_split_new (splitting, not duplicating), so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of preconditions (e.g., a selection must exist), and no reference to alternatives such as edit_copy or track_mix_and_render_to_new. The description tells an agent what the tool does but leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.

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