set_track_folder_depth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the depth encoding thoroughly, but for a state-mutating tool it says nothing about undo behavior, error handling on bad index/depth, or what happens to the project hierarchy/rendering when nesting is applied.

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 tight sentences; the opaque value encoding is front-loaded before the illustrative example, and nothing is wasted.

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?

Covers the hard part (opaque depth encoding) well and needs no return-value explanation since there is no output schema. The unexplained 'index' parameter and absent mutation side-effect notes leave a small gap.

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 does an excellent job on 'depth' (1, 0, -1, -2 semantics spelled out), but 'index' is never explained — an agent must guess it is a track index.

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: 'Set folder structure depth for a track.' No sibling tool touches folder/nesting structure, so it is effectively distinguishable, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives clear guidance on when to reach for it ('Use this to group tracks') plus a concrete worked example pairing depth=1 on a parent with depth=-1 on the last child. No exclusions are needed since no sibling performs folder nesting.

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