duplicate_clip_loop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the operation doubles the loop and includes the clip's notes, not just a copy. It does not explain whether the clip's loop length is mutated in place, whether notes are duplicated in tempo, or how it interacts with arrangement clips.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, with no filler; the parenthetical mapping to the native Live command is an efficient disambiguator. It is arguably too terse for a three-parameter mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition is thin for a mutation tool with three parameters and zero schema coverage. The meaning of the arrangement flag and the resulting state of the clip (loop length doubled in place, notes duplicated) are left to inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for the three parameters and adds almost nothing: it implies a clip is the target but never names clip_index, track_index, or explains the arrangement boolean that switches between session and arrangement contexts. That flag is the single most consequential argument and is left entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ("Double a clip's loop with its notes") and anchors it to Live's named 'Duplicate Loop' command, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like duplicate_clip_region or duplicate_to_arrangement.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting this tool over duplicate_clip_region or duplicate_to_arrangement, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that the clip must exist and be in session vs arrangement view). Only the parenthetical Live menu reference hints at context.

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