live12_track_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a valuable behavioral detail — the copy lands immediately after the source track — but says nothing about return value, undo history, or whether the duplicate preserves devices/clips/envelopes.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the placement behavior front-loaded after the core action. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

A one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema; the description never says what the call returns (e.g., the new track's index), which an agent likely needs for follow-up calls such as live12_track_set_properties on the duplicate. Otherwise adequate for invocation.

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 100% and the single parameter ('Zero-based index of the source track') is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no indexing or format detail beyond this, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Duplicates an existing track') and names the underlying Live API call (Song.duplicate_track). The 'track' scope clearly distinguishes it from clip-level siblings such as live12_clip_duplicate_to_arrangement.

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?

The description says what happens but not when to choose it over live12_track_create (build from scratch) or the clip duplicators. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context about session/arrangement are given.

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