track_select

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 that it is a prerequisite for many operations, but it does not state whether the selection replaces the current selection, how invalid indices are handled, or any other side effects. This is a notable gap for a state-changing command.

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 two short sentences plus a parameter note. It front-loads the purpose, adds a usage hint, and documents the parameter with no wasted words.

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 one-parameter selection command, it provides the necessary parameter semantics and usage context. However, without annotations or an output schema, it omits behavioral details such as selection mode (replace vs. add) and error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 only declares an integer named 'track' with no description coverage. The description adds the essential meaning: 'Track index (0-based)'. This fully compensates for the schema's silence on the single parameter.

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: 'Select a track by index.' The singular 'a track' and the 'by index' mechanism distinguish it from siblings like select_tracks, select_all, and raw_select, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

'Many operations require selecting a track first' gives a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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