edit_duplicate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions creation of a 'new track,' it lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether original selection remains selected), undoability, error states if nothing is selected, or whether the operation is 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?

The description consists of a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. Every term ('Duplicate,' 'selected audio,' 'new track') serves a specific semantic purpose, and the information is front-loaded with the action verb.

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 zero-parameter editing operation without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the core mechanism. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (selection required) and behavioral edge cases, leaving gaps that would require external knowledge or experimentation to resolve.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. According to the rubric, 0 params establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not mention parameters since none exist, and implies the prerequisite of having audio selected through the phrase 'selected audio.'

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 action ('Duplicate'), target ('selected audio'), and destination ('new track'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_copy (clipboard) and edit_paste by specifying immediate creation in a new track, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_copy/edit_paste, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., that audio must be selected first). Users must infer the appropriate use case from the action description alone.

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