arrange

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state the core behavior (duplicate, not move), the destination, and an expected return value ('placement status and arrangement clip counts'). However, it does not disclose what happens if a clip already exists at the target beat, whether the source remains untouched, or any permission/error behavior.

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?

A single informative first sentence, followed by a compact Args block and a one-line Returns note. No wasted words; the most important action is front-loaded.

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 single mutation with four params, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides all calling details and return shape. The only notable gap is target-conflict/overwrite behavior, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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: it defines track as source index in song.tracks, slot as scene/slot index, at_beat as target start position in beats, and to_track as destination with source-track default. This gives real meaning beyond the schema's bare integer/anyOf types.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Duplicate), a specific resource (Session clip), and a precise destination (Arrangement timeline at a beat position). This clearly separates it from siblings like set_arrangement_time or create_clip even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 by the first line: use this to copy a Session clip into the Arrangement. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison with alternatives such as create_clip or write_clip_notes, so it meets but does not exceed the implied-usage bar.

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