clips_duplicate

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds the two facts an agent actually needs before calling: the target slot's existing clip is overwritten, and the operation is undoable. The overwrite wording sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, but 'Undoable' reconciles it, so no genuine contradiction.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the compatibility constraint and the overwrite/undo consequences. Nothing restates the name and nothing is padding.

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 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: type-compatibility restriction, target overwrite, and undoability. Minor omissions are what the call returns and whether the source clip remains in place.

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% and both track parameters are fully documented (UUID vs 0-based index, slot ranges), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implicitly clarifies that to_track is optional ('same track or another one') and adds no slot or index semantics beyond the schema.

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 (copy a session clip to another slot) plus the scope constraint (same track or another of the same kind, MIDI→MIDI, audio→audio). That framing cleanly separates it from arrangement_copy_clip and clips_write_midi without needing to name them.

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 supplies the operative condition: destination must be the same track or a track of the same kind, which tells the agent when this call will succeed. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. arrangement_copy_clip for timeline copies) or stating when not to use it.

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