duplicate_to_arrangement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but gives no details about side effects (e.g., whether the original clip is preserved, whether existing arrangement content is overwritten), permissions, or edge cases. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action. The argument list is structured and each line earns its place 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 simple tool with three parameters, the description adequately explains the action and arguments. An output schema likely covers return values, so no missing information there. It could be slightly more explicit about the destination track (same as source) but that is implied by track_index.

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 0%, but the description provides clear, meaningful documentation for all three parameters: track_index and clip_index are zero-based, and time is in beats. This fully compensates for the bare schema and adds essential context.

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 clearly states the tool 'Duplicate a session clip to the arrangement view' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like duplicate_clip (session-only) and duplicate_scene by explicitly mentioning the destination as arrangement view.

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 contextual purpose is clear: use this when you need to place a session clip into the arrangement. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the session-to-arrangement direction implies a distinct use case compared to other duplicate tools.

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