track_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation and the selection prerequisite, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose side effects such as whether the new duplicates are selected, where they appear, or their naming. For a simple non-destructive command this is acceptable but not rich.

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 with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite stated immediately after. No filler or redundant detail.

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, the description covers the essential action and the required selection step. The main gap is not explicitly distinguishing track_duplicate from sibling edit_duplicate, though the word 'track(s)' and the select_tracks prerequisite mitigate that ambiguity.

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 is empty and parameter coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool; the description also correctly routes input through select_tracks.

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 ('Duplicate') and resource ('currently selected track(s)'), which conveys the core action clearly and helps distinguish this from clip-level edit operations like edit_duplicate. It doesn't explicitly call out sibling alternatives, so it stops short of the strongest differentiation.

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 explicitly says to select tracks first with select_tracks, giving the agent an actionable prerequisite. There is no mention of when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer instead, but for a zero-parameter command that is adequate context.

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