Upload track

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false), and the description still adds value by stating the default-private posture and the publish-only-on-request rule. It omits failure modes, size limits for audio, and whether a duplicate upload creates a second track, which would matter given destructive/non-idempotent hints.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the privacy default, then the upload-restriction guardrail. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs (formats, privacy default, file scoping) and the schema covers the rest. It does not say what the call returns (track id/URL) nor how large audio files may be, which leaves minor gaps for a non-idempotent upload.

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?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the accepted audio format list, which constrains file_path beyond the schema's terse 'Absolute path of the audio file', and clarifies that metadata and cover are optional. The remaining undocumented parameters (downloadable, description, comments) get no help, but that is a minor gap at this coverage level.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Uploads') and resource ('a local audio file ... as a new track of the account') and enumerates the supported formats, which no sibling does. The phrase 'as a new track' implicitly separates it from edit_track, set_track_cover, and delete_track in the sibling list.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: 'The track stays private unless private=false - publish only when the user asked for it' and 'Only upload files the user named.' These are real behavioral constraints an agent could otherwise violate. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. edit_track for post-upload changes), so it is not a full 5.

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