arrangement_copy_clip

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds meaningful behavior: the copy is independent (deep copy, not linked), MIDI clips can only be copied to MIDI tracks, and the operation is undoable. It does not mention permissions or return values, but the added constraints are useful.

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?

Three compact sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the independence and undoability details.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: copying, track compatibility, independence of the copy, and undoability. It could be strengthened by explicitly distinguishing this from sibling tools, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that to_beat is the start beat of the copy and that to_track must be track-type compatible (MIDI clips go to MIDI tracks). It does not elaborate on clip or track index semantics, but it does add value for two parameters.

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 and resource: copying one timeline clip to another beat, optionally across tracks. This distinguishes it reasonably from generic placement or duplication tools, though it never names the closest siblings such as arrangement_place_clip or clips_duplicate.

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 implies when to use it by explaining that the copy is independent and can be edited or muted to make a variation. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not name alternatives or explain how it differs from arrangement_place_clip or clips_duplicate.

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