duplicate_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that duplication includes devices and clips, and that track indices change afterward—important side-effect information. It does not mention non-destructiveness or error handling, but the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and is highly scannable.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is duplicated, and the need to refresh indices. It could mention what happens to the original or the new track's position, but such details are implied by the duplication concept and the re-read instruction.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not directly explain 'track_index' beyond what the schema offers (type integer). The indirect hint to use get_session_info for indices implies the parameter's origin, but it lacks explicit meaning such as zero-based indexing or validity range.

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 tool's purpose: 'Duplicate a track (with its devices and clips).' The verb 'duplicate' is specific, and the parenthetical clarifies the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like duplicate_clip or create_midi_track.

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 description gives explicit post-action guidance: 'Re-read get_session_info afterwards to learn indices.' This indicates when to use the tool (when duplicating a track) and provides a clear follow-up step. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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