raw_track_move_down

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful. It does not explain what happens when there is no focused track or whether the action is undoable, but it provides some transparency beyond the bare operation.

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 action. Every clause adds information: the action, the no-argument nature, and the potential side effects. There is no fluff.

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 simple no-argument command, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, confirms no arguments, and warns about possible side effects. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat cryptic and could confuse an agent looking for an input or external reference, so a full 5 is not warranted.

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 has no parameters and the description reinforces this by explicitly calling it a 'no-argument' action. Since there are no parameters to document, the description fully covers parameter semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Move the focused track down one position.' The qualifier 'one position' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like raw_track_move_bottom and raw_track_move_up, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Usage is implied by the action statement: use this when you need to move the focused track down by exactly one position. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as raw_track_move_bottom or raw_track_move_up, and the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague rather than actionable.

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