Edit track

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

The annotations already declare destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: partial updates, account-plan limitations, publishing that notifies followers, and a copyright approval wait. The unexplained 'answer.waiting=true' reference slightly muddies transparency because that field is not in the schema.

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 front-loaded and tightly worded, with no unnecessary repetition. The final 'answer.waiting=true' sentence is cryptic but still concise.

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 52-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is too high-level. It covers some side effects and account constraints but does not compensate for the low schema description coverage or explain validation, authorization, and return behavior sufficiently.

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?

There are 52 parameters and only 42% schema description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It only clarifies private=false and the generic partial-update rule, leaving most parameters undocumented by either schema or description.

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: 'Changes settings of an own track,' with the scope 'everything the edit page can change.' It is clearly distinguishable from upload_track, delete_track, and get_track, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: edit an own track and send only the fields that should change. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives such as delete_track, upload_track, or edit_set.

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