duplicate_to_arrangement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool copies a clip to the arrangement timeline at a specified beat position on the same track. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing clips at that position), permissions, or error conditions. This is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 concise: two short paragraphs and a bulleted list. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides a workflow and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and workflow. It could be more complete by addressing potential errors or dependencies (e.g., session clip must exist), but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 0% coverage (no descriptions), but the description provides clear, detailed definitions for all three parameters: track_index ('Index of the track that owns the Session clip'), clip_index ('Index of the clip slot in that track'), and destination_time ('Beat position in the arrangement' with examples). This adds essential meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Copy a Session-view clip into the Arrangement timeline.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fire_clip' (which plays in session view) and 'get_arrangement_clips' (which retrieves existing clips).

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 provides a 'Typical workflow' with explicit steps (create_clip, duplicate_to_arrangement, switch_to_arrangement_view), guiding when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the workflow context is clear enough for an agent.

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