ableton_duplicate_track

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and return value, omitting side effects (e.g., whether clips, devices, and routing are duplicated), any constraints (e.g., maximum tracks), or undoability. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of completeness. Important behavioral and parameter details are missing, so it cannot be considered well-structured for effective use.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It lacks information on return format, error conditions, prerequisites, and integration with other tools. For a mutating tool in Ableton, this is incomplete.

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 50%, but the description adds no elaboration on parameters beyond what the schema provides. 'trackIndex' lacks description in both schema and tool description. The optional 'name' parameter is mentioned but not explained in context. The description does not help an agent understand parameter usage.

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 the verb 'duplicate' and the resource 'Ableton Live track', and specifies that it returns the new track index. This makes the basic purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'ableton_create_midi_track' or 'ableton_modify_track', which slightly reduces clarity for tool selection.

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 (e.g., creating a new track from scratch vs. duplicating an existing one). Prerequisites (e.g., track exists, is not frozen) and when not to use it are absent.

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