raw_track_move_up

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It warns that the tool 'May open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name, which is somewhat useful. However, it's vague about what dialog or state changes could occur, and it doesn't clarify the underlying Audacity behavior beyond moving a track.

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—two sentences that state the action and a caution. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The caution is brief and doesn't bloat the content, though it could be more specific.

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, parameterless tool, the description covers the basic action. However, it doesn't explain what 'focused track' means in Audacity, when moving up is appropriate (e.g., reordering tracks), or what the resulting project state might be beyond 'change project state.' Given the sibling set and lack of output schema, a bit more context would improve usability.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema reflects that with an empty properties object. The description redundantly states 'no-argument,' but with no params to document, the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify.

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 action: 'Move the focused track up one position.' This specifies a concrete verb, resource, and direction. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like raw_track_move_top or raw_track_move_down, even though the nuance is important for correct selection.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling move commands (e.g., move top, move bottom). It includes a caution about side effects but doesn't state typical use cases or prerequisites, leaving an agent to infer when to select it.

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