raw_shift_up

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the tool 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful caution for a raw action. However, the warning is vague about the nature of those state changes, reversibility, or what side effects to expect.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and object come first, followed by a concise side-effect caveat. Every sentence adds information and there is no redundant filler or schema repetition.

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 zero-parameter static action with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and flags potential side effects. It could be more specific about what project state might change or whether a dialog can block execution, but for this simple tool the guidance is reasonably complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is no parameter documentation gap. The description reinforces this by calling it 'no-argument,' which aligns with the empty input schema and leaves nothing for the agent to infer about arguments.

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 states a specific action: 'Move focus upward and select the previous track.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from related navigation tools like raw_shift_down or raw_prev_track. It also adds that it is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' making the intent unmistakable.

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 description gives the tool's semantics but does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling tools such as raw_shift_down, raw_next_track, or raw_prev_track. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives, and the advice to 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable routing guidance.

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