track_align_end_to_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action and the prerequisite but does not state whether the operation is destructive, reversible, how it affects clips outside the selection, or what happens to gaps and timestamps. For a mutating edit tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite stated immediately after. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple selection-based operation, but because there are no annotations and no output schema, it should also clarify the effect on the rest of the project and whether the operation can be undone. It covers the key precondition but leaves behavioral consequences unstated.

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 input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately emphasizes the selection prerequisite instead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Align selected tracks end-to-end (sequentially).' The phrase 'sequentially' clarifies the ordering behavior and helps distinguish it from nearby siblings like edit_join or track_mix_and_render. It is clear but not perfectly detailed about what 'align' produces in the timeline.

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?

Provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Select the tracks first.' However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as edit_join, track_mix_and_render, or edit_disjoin, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions under which it should not be used.

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