edit_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavior: the selected audio goes to the clipboard and the source is copied rather than removed. The prerequisite is also stated, which is enough for safe invocation of a non-destructive copy operation.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the operation stated first and the prerequisite immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 tool this is nearly complete: action, target, and precondition are all present. It could add a note about clipboard scope (e.g., that the copy can be pasted using edit_paste), but that is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so schema-side documentation is already complete. The description still adds useful context by tying the operation to the current track and time-range selection.

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 uses a specific verb ('copy') and resource ('selected audio to clipboard'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from siblings like edit_cut and edit_paste because it copies to the clipboard rather than cutting or pasting.

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?

It provides a concrete usage prerequisite: select tracks and a time range first. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name an alternative, but the context is clear.

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