duplicate_clip_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool raises an error on audio clips, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation (modifies the clip), what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what the return value looks like (success/failure indicators). The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized with four sentences that each add value: core functionality, pitch filtering, transposition, and error condition. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with indentation is slightly unusual.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers core functionality and one error case but lacks information about what the tool returns, whether it modifies the original clip, what units the time parameters use, or how to handle edge cases. The context signals indicate high complexity that isn't fully addressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'pitch' (filtering when not -1) and 'transposition_amount' (semitones transposition), but doesn't clarify the other 4 parameters (clip_id, region_start, region_end, destination_time). The description adds meaning for 2 of 6 parameters, which is insufficient compensation 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 the tool duplicates notes in a specified region to a destination time, with optional pitch filtering and transposition. It distinguishes from siblings like 'duplicate_clip_loop' or 'duplicate_clip_to_track' by focusing on region-based duplication within a clip, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage for duplicating note regions with optional pitch filtering and transposition, and warns against use on audio clips. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'duplicate_clip_loop' or 'add_notes_to_clip', nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions beyond the audio clip restriction.

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