track_add_stereo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly reveals that a new stereo audio track is created in the project, but it does not mention side effects such as selection behavior, whether a project must be open, or whether the operation is undoable. For a simple, non-destructive add operation this is acceptable but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no redundant words. Every word 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. The only ambiguity is the lack of explicit return-value information, but that is not necessary for such a simple mutation.

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 is empty with 0 parameters, which is the baseline 4 case. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and the description accurately implies that the tool requires no additional configuration.

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 action ('Add'), a specific resource ('new stereo audio track'), and a destination ('to the project'). The 'stereo' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from the sibling track_add_mono, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 intended use is implied by the description and the tool name, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative such as track_add_mono is mentioned. An agent must infer that this is the tool for stereo tracks rather than the mono or label variants.

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