raw_toggle

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful for a mutating raw command. However, the warning is generic and doesn't specify which dialog, what state changes, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, but the opening 'Toggle:' is redundant, and the final instruction 'inspect the command name first' is vague and not fully actionable. It is concise but not 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 parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the core action and a side-effect caveat. However, it doesn't fully explain what 'focus' means, what dialog might open, or how project state could change. The 'inspect first' instruction implies more information is needed than the description alone provides.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description reinforces this with 'no-argument Audacity action.' This makes it clear that no arguments should be supplied, satisfying the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 identifies a specific action and target: 'Toggle focus on the current track.' This distinguishes it from sibling toggles like raw_zoom_toggle or raw_track_mute. However, the lead 'Toggle:' is redundant with the tool name, and the vague framing 'Toggle focus' could be clearer about what exactly changes.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Static no-argument Audacity action' implies invocation constraints but not selection criteria. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is a caution, not a usage condition, and offers little directional help.

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