fmod_Event_addReturnTrack

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that a new ManagedObject is created and returned, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., if a return track with the same name already exists) or any required permissions. The behavioral description is minimal.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the action, input, and output. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence provides a method reference. No waste.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics: what it does and what it returns. However, it lacks contextual details such as whether the operation is idempotent, any constraints on the event, or error conditions. Given the tool's low complexity, it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions for 'name' and 'target'. It only repeats that the name is assigned to the track, which is already clear from 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 clearly states 'Adds a return track with the given name to the event', specifying the verb (adds), resource (return track), and context (event). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fmod_Event_addGroupTrack or fmod_Event_addMarkerTrack by naming the specific track type.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the event needing to exist or be in a certain state, nor are alternative methods for adding tracks compared.

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