ue_sequence_add_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the track is added with its first section already included, and it explains default start/end behavior ('default: inizio del playback', 'default: fine del playback'). However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate tracks, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by an Args block. Each piece of information earns its place, and the layout makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and all parameters, which is strong given no output schema. However, it omits preconditions (e.g., whether the sequence must be open) and error behavior, so it is not fully complete for an agent that might need to handle failures.

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%, but the description fully compensates by detailing every parameter: sequence_path, binding (including the convention of actor label or index), track_type (listing valid aliases and the option of an exact class name), and start/end with defaults. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 action: 'Aggiunge una track a un binding' (adds a track to a binding), with the added detail that it includes the first section. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ue_sequence_add_actor or ue_sequence_add_key.

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 usage is implied: you use this tool when you need to add a track to a binding. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The parameter descriptions give some context but not alternative guidance.

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