duplicate_arrangement_clip

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

Annotations only say non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavior: 'preserves the source' and 'validates its identity again at the native write boundary'. It also hints at a two-phase plan/duplicate flow, though it does not detail the confirmation mechanism.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key constraints. No wasted words; every clause adds meaning.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, but the description plus 100% schema coverage covers the essentials. It does not explicitly explain the two-phase commit pattern (dryRun → plan → confirm), but the schema describes those parameters and the description's 'Plan or duplicate' hints at it. Adequate for a moderately complex tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds the 'non-overlapping' constraint on startBeats and 'same track' context for trackId, but these are minor enhancements; it does not explain planHash or confirmationToken beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (duplicate), resource (Arrangement clip), and constraints (non-overlapping, same track, exact copy). It clearly distinguishes from move/delete/place tools by emphasizing duplication and preservation.

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?

It clearly conveys this is for duplicating arrangement clips, which narrows context among siblings like duplicate_clip, duplicate_clip_loop, and move_arrangement_clip. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it misses the 'exclusions' that would earn a 5.

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