edit_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description itself must communicate behavior. It does say it creates a new track, implying a non-destructive copy. However, it does not clarify whether each selected track gets its own new track or all selected audio merges into one new track, nor whether effects, volume, or other properties are copied.

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: the first states the operation, the second states the prerequisite. Every word adds necessary information and the tool name is not repeated.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, this description is sufficient. An agent knows what action to perform, what must be selected beforehand, and what the expected result will be.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond the general instruction to select tracks and a range first. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 states a specific action, 'Duplicate the selected audio into a new track,' with a clear resource. This differentiates it from siblings like track_duplicate, which would duplicate a track rather than a selection.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Select tracks and a time range first.' This tells the agent what state must be set up before invoking the tool, though it does not name alternative tools or conditions 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.