duplicate_item

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states that it duplicates an item and describes identifiers. It does not explain what happens to the original item, where the duplicate is placed if no new_time/new_measure is given, whether the duplicate is selected, or any other side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose and then organized into sections. However, the item identification information is repeated: 'track_pos_idx (integer)' and 'direct_item_id (string)' appear in the Item Identification section and then are restated in the Args list, adding some redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values don't need describing, but the description leaves ambiguities about the interaction of new_time and new_measure (e.g., which takes precedence) and the default duplicate position when neither is supplied. It also gives no error or edge-case guidance. Overall it's mostly complete but has clear gaps.

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 schema provides no descriptions, so the description compensates fully: it explains track_index as the track index, item_id as either an integer track position or a string internal ID with examples, new_time as seconds, and new_measure using a 'measure:beat,fraction' format. This gives the agent necessary meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action: 'Duplicate an existing item on a track.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, delete, or query items.

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 clear context on how to identify items (track_pos_idx or direct_item_id) and how to set the new position via optional times. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, though none are obvious.

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