track_add_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the primary effect (creating a label track) without disclosing side effects such as selection changes, undo behavior, or impact on existing tracks. This is the minimum possible for a mutation tool and lacks enrichment.

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?

A single sentence conveys the entire purpose with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action.

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-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core function. It does not mention return values or side effects, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is arguably complete enough for an agent to proceed correctly.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter details since there are none. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 (add), the resource (a new empty label track), and the scope (to the project). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like track_add_mono/stereo which create audio tracks, and label_add which likely adds labels to an existing track.

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 implies when to use it—when you need to add a label track—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives. For a zero-parameter tool with a straightforward purpose, this is adequate though minimal.

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