duplicate_track

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states duplication includes clips and devices, but omits side effects, permissions, or naming conventions. This is insufficient 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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The parameter list is clear, though structure could be slightly improved with bullet points or more consistent formatting.

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 complexity of a duplication operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain where the new track appears, naming conventions, or behavior regarding automation/routing. No output schema is present, so the description should elaborate on return values.

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 parameter track_index is described as 'The index of the track to duplicate', adding basic context beyond the schema title. However, it doesn't specify indexing base (0 or 1) or how to obtain the index.

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 a track with all its clips and devices, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like duplicate_clip and duplicate_scene.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as duplicate_clip or create_track, nor are any prerequisites or limitations mentioned.

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