duplicate_track

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the copy includes clips AND devices, and it 'lands right after it,' which implies index shifting for later tracks. It does not say whether the new track becomes selected, whether the original is untouched, or whether indices below the insertion point are affected.

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 compact sentence with zero filler, and the scope (clips/devices) plus the placement consequence are front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a mutation tool, leaving room for the index semantics and idempotency note that were dropped.

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 explained. However, for a mutating, index-addressed tool with zero schema coverage, the definition should still clarify what the index denotes and whether the operation shifts subsequent track indices — details an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results.

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% and the single parameter track_index has no description, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions track_index at all. It omits whether the index is zero-based, whether it refers to a position in the track list, and whether negative or out-of-range values are handled.

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 ('Duplicate') and resource ('a track'), and scopes the operation to 'its clips and devices.' An agent can tell this apart from clip-level duplication siblings such as duplicate_clip_region or duplicate_clip_loop without opening any schema. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with delete_track/create_midi_track.

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 preconditions (e.g., a track must exist at that index), and no pointer to alternatives like create_midi_track plus copy. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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