duplicate_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action and included items. It does not disclose side effects like insertion position, track naming, undoability, or whether routing and automation are copied.

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 very short, direct, and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could include more behavioral context 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description captures the basic operation but omits expected results (e.g., where the new track appears, return values) and side effects. It feels barely adequate.

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 description 'The index of the track to duplicate' adds little beyond the schema's property title 'Track Index'. It does not clarify zero-based indexing, bounds, or existence requirements, and schema coverage is 0%.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Duplicate', the specific resource 'track', and the scope 'with all its clips and devices'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_clip or duplicate_scene. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual indications; the usage is only implied by the name.

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