duplicate_clip

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description confirms that behaviour with the specific consequences: move=True relocates rather than copies, clip envelopes travel with the copy, and occupied slots or overlapping arrangement ranges are refused. The refusal semantics and envelope propagation are real added context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and route modes, then destinations/defaults, then constraints, then a concrete example. Every sentence adds information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 destructive, 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter docs, the description covers almost everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Only arrangement_clip and any return/confirmation behaviour are left unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load and does well: it explains to_slot defaults, to_time accepting beats or "bar.beat.sixteenth" notation with its arrangement default, to_track defaulting to the same track, and move's copy-vs-move switch. The one gap is arrangement_clip, which is never mentioned.

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+resource ('Copy ... a clip') and enumerates the exact source→destination route combinations it supports (Session→Session slot, Session→arrangement, arrangement→arrangement). This scope statement makes it clearly distinguishable from create_clip and delete_clip in the sibling list.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: the move=True variant, the defaults for destination (next empty slot below, same track; right after itself for arrangement sources), and the refusal conditions for occupied slots and overlapping ranges. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. create_clip for a fresh empty clip).

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