add_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: `name` is optional and the default `position` of -1 appends at the end. It says nothing about out-of-range position handling, error behavior, or whether the track is selected after creation.

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?

Three terse sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action, then the two parameter semantics, then the return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers both parameters and even documents the return shape {index, name}, which is otherwise unavailable. Only edge-case behavior on an invalid position 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it marks `name` as optional and fully explains `position` semantics (0-based insert index, -1 default appends). It omits only the empty-string default for `name` that the schema declares.

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 and resource ('Add a new track'), which is instantly distinguishable from sibling mutations like delete_track or rename_track. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action is unambiguous on its own.

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 guidance on when to add a track versus using apply_template, insert_midi_item, or new_project, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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