duplicate_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'duplicate', implying creation of a new track, but does not disclose behavior like insertion position, naming, or whether it copies all properties. Missing details on side effects.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded with the verb. No wasted words, but could benefit from structured additional details.

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?

Given no output schema and a mutation tool, the description should mention the effect (e.g., 'creates a duplicate track') and any relevant behavior. It is insufficient to fully inform the agent about what happens.

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%. The description adds 'at the given index' for track_index, which clarifies its purpose. However, ctx is entirely unmentioned, and no additional constraints or formats are provided for track_index.

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 clearly states the action (duplicate), resource (track), and scope (at given index). It distinguishes from sibling tools like duplicate_clip or delete_track because it explicitly targets a track. However, it does not elaborate on the result, such as where the duplicate is placed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_audio_track, duplicate_clip, or copy-paste operations). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or valid indexes.

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