duplicate_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: copies are placed back to back (i.e. appended sequentially rather than stacked). It says nothing about what identifiers the new copies receive, whether the source item is left untouched, or how the 256-copy ceiling behaves.

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, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The parenthetical examples earn their space by grounding an abstract operation, though they slightly delay the behavioral fact about placement.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema; the description omits return behavior (what ids/handles the new copies get) and the multi-copy semantics. Adequate for basic invocation but leaves real gaps for an agent planning follow-up operations on the duplicated items.

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 75%, with item_id, start_bar and start_beat documented in the schema itself, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning at all – notably it never mentions that a count parameter exists for multiple copies, which is the key semantic distinction from 'copy once'.

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?

Names a specific verb (copies) and resource (item), and the examples ('repeat a 4-bar loop', 'reuse the chorus') make the operation concrete. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as create_midi_item or place_loop, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

Usage is implied through the musical examples rather than stated: there is no explicit 'use this when you want N consecutive copies, otherwise use X' routing. No alternatives or exclusions are named, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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