raw_track_gain_inc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful caution. However, the warning is vague and does not explain consequences like undoability, exact increment behavior, or what happens if no track is focused. 'Inspect the command name first' is oddly circular since the command name is already available.

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 with the core purpose. The 'TrackGainInc:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the rest is efficient and each clause adds useful information.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what it does, that it takes no arguments, and that side effects may occur. It could still specify prerequisites more precisely, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple raw action.

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 schema is empty with zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' explicitly confirming that no arguments are needed, which adds clarity beyond the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Increase the gain on the focused track.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like raw_track_gain_dec (decrease) or raw_track_gain (set gain).

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 clear context—this is a static no-argument action on the focused track—but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over siblings such as raw_track_gain_dec or raw_track_gain. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints beyond the purpose.

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