duplicate_midi_clip_variations

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing atomicity semantics: 'One undo step; removes copies on failure', 'verifies exposed copies and preserves original'. That is meaningful for a mutating tool with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, since it tells the agent the operation is all-or-nothing and rollback-safe. Missing only the dryRun/planToken confirmation flow, which the schema covers.

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?

Four terse sentences with zero filler. The core action and its constraints are front-loaded, followed by the behavioral guarantees (atomicity, preservation) and the semantic caveat about copy independence.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential behavioral context (atomicity, failure cleanup, original preservation, copy independence). Only the two-phase dryRun/token execution model is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves a small gap.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented (including that clipId must be an existing empty slot and sourceClipId must be populated). The description's '1-4 named' matches the variants constraints but adds no syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (copy/duplicate) and resource (Session MIDI clips) with an explicit cardinality limit (1-4) and destination constraint (empty slots on the same track). An agent can distinguish it from single-clip duplicate_clip or duplicate_clip_loop by the batched, named-variant framing, though no sibling is named outright.

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 conveys the precondition (empty slots on the same track) and the post-condition ('Edit identical copies separately'), which implies usage context, but it never tells the agent when to prefer this over duplicate_clip, duplicate_clip_loop, or duplicate_session_object. Usage is inferred, not stated.

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