duplicate_arrangement_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states the duplication action and destination_time unit, omitting side effects (e.g., does it overwrite? create new clip?), required permissions, or behavior on conflicts.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameter hints).

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature (duplication), the description lacks context on return values (despite an output schema existing), error conditions, or how it interacts with the timeline. It feels incomplete for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations.

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 adds meaning to destination_time by specifying 'in beats'. However, track_index and clip_index remain unexplained, leaving two of three parameters with no added 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 clearly states it duplicates an arrangement clip to a new timeline position, specifying that destination_time is in beats. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like duplicate_clip_to_scene or duplicate_session_to_arrangement, missing the chance to differentiate.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage without context.

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