duplicate_to_arrangement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the operation, placement at destination_time beats, and same-track behavior, and it mentions the underlying Live API. It does not disclose potential side effects such as overlap/overwrite behavior or failure conditions when the source clip or track is invalid.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then uses a compact API note, a helpful workflow list, and a clear parameter block. Every sentence contributes usable information and there is no redundant filler.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is nearly complete: purpose, parameters, workflow, and placement semantics are all present, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. The only notable gap is the lack of side-effect/failure context around placing a clip where arrangement content may already exist.

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%, but the description compensates fully by documenting every parameter, including the telemetry-only user_prompt. destination_time gets a concrete beat-position explanation with an example, which is significantly more useful than the bare property name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: copy a Session-view clip into the Arrangement timeline. It names the exact API and its Live version, and the Session-vs-Arrangement framing distinguishes it from siblings like set_arrangement_clip_name and get_arrangement_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?

A three-step typical workflow tells the agent to build a Session clip first, call duplicate_to_arrangement once per needed section, and confirm with switch_to_arrangement_view. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not spell out when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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