duplicate_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: devices and clips are copied along with the track, and the copy is inserted directly after the original (no ordering ambiguity). It does not say whether routing, color, or automation carry over, whether the source is left untouched, or that the operation is additive rather than destructive.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler; the parenthetical and trailing clause both carry information. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the essential outcome (a new track appears right after the source, with its devices and clips) so no return value explanation is needed. The only real gap is the indexing convention for track_index and the effect on the current selection.

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?

The single parameter 'track_index' has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds nothing about it. The critical ambiguity is whether the index is 0-based or 1-based and how it maps to the visible track list, which the description never resolves.

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 ('Duplicate') and resource ('a track'), and adds real scope detail: the copy includes devices and clips, and lands immediately after the source. The noun 'track' inherently separates it from duplicate_clip/duplicate_scene, but the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied by the name and action; there is no when-to-use/when-not framing and no pointers to alternatives such as create_track, set_track, or duplicate_clip. For a common operation with many adjacent siblings this is adequate but leaves routing to the agent.

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