select_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call replaces any previous selection (effectively destructive to prior state) and that an empty array clears it, but omits index-base convention, behavior on out-of-range indices, and whether the selection persists across project changes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the replacement constraint; no filler content.

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 one-parameter mutation of selection state with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the essentials (what gets replaced, how to clear) but leaves the indexing convention and invalid-index handling undefined.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that indices is a list of track indices and that [] clears the selection, but never states whether indices are 0-based or 1-based, which is the single most important detail for calling this correctly.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (select tracks) plus the scoping detail that selection is by index list. It is clearly distinguishable from the similarly named select_items_on_track, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is a prerequisite step before track operations, and the description's note about replacing selection and clearing with [] hints at state semantics. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or listed prerequisites.

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