resolve_add_track

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

The description notes the tool is non-read-only and non-destructive, consistent with annotations, but provides no additional behavioral details such as error conditions when a track already exists, cost, or rate limits. The description adds little beyond the annotations themselves.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient structure. While it efficiently states the core purpose, it omits critical details, making it borderline under-specified.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters with no schema descriptions and a complex domain (timeline management), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain parameter interactions or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. However, it only mentions 'name' as optional and ignores other key parameters like index, audio_type, timeline_id, timeline_name, and idempotency_key, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 action ('Add'), the resource ('track'), and specifies the types it supports ('video, audio, or subtitle'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_append_clips or resolve_set_track_state.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it does not mention that a timeline must exist, nor does it contrast with other track-related tools like resolve_set_track_state.

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