duplicate_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., whether duplication preserves track properties, if it's a destructive operation, or what happens on failure). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets duplicated (e.g., clips, settings), the return value, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., track properties, routing), more context is needed.

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 100%, with the parameter 'index' documented as '[int] index of track'. The description adds minimal value by implying the index is used for duplication, but doesn't clarify semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., valid range, zero-based indexing). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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') and resource ('midi or audio track'), specifying it's done 'by index'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'duplicate_clip_loop' or 'duplicate_clip_region', which handle different resources (clips vs. tracks).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing tracks), exclusions (e.g., invalid indices), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_track' for new tracks or 'duplicate_clip_to_track' for clip duplication.

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