duplicate_session_clip_to_arrangement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that it adds exactly one Arrangement clip in one undo step, that the Session clip is unchanged, that envelopes travel with the copy, and it names two error codes (BAD_INPUT for empty slot, CAPABILITY_UNAVAILABLE for unsupported hosts). It stops short of stating the successful return value or any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then cleanly sections side effects, an example, and edge cases. Every sentence carries information (undo semantics, envelope behavior, error codes) with no 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, a concrete example, and failure modes. The only meaningful gap is the success return value, which the absence of an output schema leaves slightly open.

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. The worked example maps each positional argument to a meaning — 38 = track, 0 = slot one (zero-based), 468.0 = beat — and 'at an exact beat' clarifies the time unit. This effectively documents all three parameters, though it does so by example rather than explicit per-parameter prose.

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: placing a Session clip onto the Arrangement timeline at an exact beat. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like move_arrangement_clip, delete_arrangement_clip, and get_arrangement_clips, which operate on existing Arrangement clips rather than duplicating from a Session slot.

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 example and edge cases imply intended usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., fire_clip, create_clip, or move_arrangement_clip). Usage is demonstrated rather than framed, so it is adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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