piano_roll_duplicate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the operation is a copy, implying the source is preserved, but it does not state what happens to existing notes at the destination, whether the copy overwrites or merges, whether it is undoable, or how boundaries are handled. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple three-parameter tool, though it sacrifices behavioral detail.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to supply safety, boundary, and destination-overwrite context, but it provides almost none. An agent cannot tell whether the destination is an insertion point, whether existing notes are cleared, or whether the range includes both endpoints. This is under-specified for reliable 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. While 'time-range' and 'another location' loosely map to source_time_bars, length_bars, and dest_time_bars, the description adds no concrete semantics about units, whether source_time_bars is the start, what length_bars means exactly, or how dest_time_bars is interpreted. The parameter names carry most of the meaning.

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 and resource: 'Copy a time-range of notes to another location.' It clearly conveys a non-destructive duplication operation and is distinct from siblings like piano_roll_delete_notes or piano_roll_transpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as piano_roll_add_notes, piano_roll_write_pattern, or piano_roll_transpose. It does not state prerequisites, common scenarios, or when not to use it. The intended use is only implicitly inferable from the name and one-line description.

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