add_level_visibility_track

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the agent knows adding twice may duplicate. The description adds the return shape (track_added, section_added, saved, save_error), which usefully signals the sequence gets saved and can fail, but it does not state permissions or reversal behavior.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The inline returns object is verbose but earns its place given there is no output schema, though its formatting is dense.

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 annotations covering safety and no dedicated output schema, embedding the return shape compensates well, and the level_names/visible behavior is inferable. The missing prerequisite that a Level Sequence must already exist is the main gap.

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 visible, level_names, and sequence_name all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'over the playback range' implies scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb (Add) and resource (level-visibility track + section) and scopes it to 'streamed-level visibility over the playback range', which meaningfully separates it from the sibling add_visibility_track (actor visibility). It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or its distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative add_visibility_track, and no prerequisites such as requiring an existing Level Sequence to target via sequence_name. The agent must infer all routing and preconditions on its own.

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