duplicate_to_arrangement

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

The description explicitly states 'OVERWRITES whatever already occupies the destination range... like recording over tape - this is also the supported way to REPLACE a section,' adding significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also mentions the underlying API and Live version compatibility.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, behavioral notes, workflow, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and typical usage, making it complete for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

Despite the input schema having no descriptions (0% coverage), the description explains each parameter: track_index (track owning clip), clip_index (clip slot in Session), destination_time (beat position in arrangement). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Copy a Session-view clip into the Arrangement timeline,' specifying the exact action (copy/duplicate) and resource (Session clip to Arrangement). It distinguishes from siblings like 'duplicate_clip_to' and 'delete_arrangement_clip' by focusing on the specific Session-to-Arrangement operation.

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 provides a typical workflow (create clip, duplicate_to_arrangement, switch_to_arrangement_view) and explains that it overwrites content, implying use for placement/replacement. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear given the workflow and sibling operations.

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