add_weighted_value_track

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the safety burden is partly lifted. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload (section_created, section_count, saved), which tells the agent that adding the track also creates a section and persists it — context not available from any structured field.

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?

placeholder

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?

The tool is a mutation with annotations covering its safety profile and a full-coverage schema; the only structural gap is the absence of an output schema, which the description compensates for by enumerating the returned fields. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds minor semantic framing by clarifying that the numeric property is a weight/alpha/scalar blend, but offers no extra syntax or default detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (Add), a concrete resource (Float property track on a numeric property), and the exact target (a Level Sequence binding). It further distinguishes itself from the sibling add_property_track by framing itself as a 'thin domain wrapper,' so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 note that it is a 'thin domain wrapper over add_property_track' implies a selection relationship between the two tools, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the generic add_property_track or add_weighted_value_keyframe. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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