add_property_track

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the side effect that a section spanning the playback range is auto-created so keys evaluate, and by embedding return fields (saved, save_error?) that hint at implicit persistence. It lacks any permission/prerequisite disclosure, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 well-formed sentences front-load the core action and side effect, followed by a compact return-fields block. The return block earns its place since no output schema exists. Slight redundancy between the sentences but nothing wasted.

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 and a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and return shape (compensating for the absent output schema). It does not state prerequisites such as needing an existing binding or a valid sequence path, leaving a minor 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with examples (e.g. "RelativeLocation", "Intensity", type enum values). The description adds only the general notion that a typed, named property is targeted, which does not extend syntax or format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (adds) and resource (typed property track + section) and scopes it to a Level Sequence binding, plus explains that the track animates a named property on the bound object. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_transform_track_to_binding, add_weighted_value_track, and add_keyframe_to_property_track.

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 when the tool applies (when you need a typed property track that evaluates keys on a binding) via the explanation of auto-created section, but it never names alternatives or states when-not-to-use it versus other track-adding siblings. Usage is inferable from context but not explicit.

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