set_track_arm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning reversibility, effect on playback, or potential side effects. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's impact.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded. However, it is too brief and sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less useful than it could be.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly. It does not explain the effect of the arm boolean, how track_index is interpreted, or what happens after the action.

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 description does not explain the parameters at all. With 0% schema description coverage and no param info in the description, the agent cannot understand the meaning of 'track_index' or 'arm' beyond their names. The schema provides basic types but no semantics.

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 clearly states the verb (arm/disarm) and the resource (track) with the purpose of recording. It distinguishes itself from sibling set_track_* tools by specifying 'for recording', making the action clear. However, it does not elaborate on the concept of arming.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_track_mute or other recording-related commands. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions under which arming is appropriate.

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