tracks_duplicate

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it lists exactly what gets copied, states that the duplicate is inserted immediately after the source, defines the naming convention, discloses that plugin instruments load asynchronously and may not appear in tracks.list immediately, and confirms the action is undoable. These details are highly relevant for an agent invoking a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation.

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?

The description is three focused sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by important async and undo details. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is copied, where the copy appears, the naming convention, async visibility timing, and undoability. Nothing essential for correct 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'track' parameter, including both UUID string and 0-based index forms and the caveat that indexes shift. The description does not add further parameter-specific guidance, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Copy a track') and enumerates exactly what is duplicated: instrument, clips, effects, mixer settings, and automation. It also specifies placement ('right after it') and naming ('<name> (Copy)'), which clearly distinguishes it from tracks_create and 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 usage is implied by 'Copy a track' and the insertion placement, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this instead of tracks_create or clips_duplicate. It gives useful context about placement and async behavior, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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