duplicate_track

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 states that clips and devices are duplicated, but omits important behavioral details such as whether track routing, sends, or automation are also copied, where the duplicate is placed, and whether the action is reversible.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core operation, and uses a simple parameter list with no redundant filler. For a single-parameter tool, it is appropriately sized, though it could include more behavioral detail without becoming verbose.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential meaning of the operation. However, it lacks important context such as where the duplicate appears, which track properties are preserved, and any limitations, making it only minimally complete for real-world use.

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 schema has no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only restates the parameter name ('The index of the track to duplicate') without adding indexing conventions, valid range, or whether the index refers to a pre- or post-duplication state. This adds little beyond the schema itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('a track'), and explicitly scopes the action to include 'all its clips and devices.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_clip, which operates on 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_clip or create_midi_track/create_audio_track. There is no mention of track types, session vs. arrangement context, or preconditions.

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