prepare_track_for_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's actions (selecting a track and setting loop range based on audio clips) and hints at a workflow with 'export_selected_track', but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling. It doesn't contradict annotations, but could be more comprehensive 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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given the tool has one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description does a good job covering the essential context. It explains the tool's role in a workflow and parameter usage, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or dependencies.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'track_index' by explaining it's used to identify which track to prepare, which is helpful given the schema has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't specify valid ranges or constraints (e.g., if indices start at 0 or 1), leaving some ambiguity.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('prepare', 'select', 'set') and resources ('track', 'loop range', 'audio clips'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'select_track_by_index' or 'set_export_range', which have overlapping functionality.

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 context by mentioning 'ready for export_selected_track', suggesting this tool should be used before that sibling. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'select_track_by_index' or 'set_export_range', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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