resolve_set_track_state

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

Annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false) indicate safe modifications. The description adds specific actions (rename, enable, lock) not fully captured by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., behavior if track is already locked) or success conditions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core actions without filler.

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?

With 7 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is too brief to guide an agent. It omits explanation of required identifiers (track_type, track_index) and optional timeline specifiers, as well as how multiple actions can be combined. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at parameters name (rename), locked (lock/unlock), and enabled (enable/disable) but does not map actions to parameters or explain identification fields (track_type, track_index, timeline_id, timeline_name) or their role. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 uses specific verbs (rename, enable/disable, lock/unlock) and identifies the resource as 'existing timeline track'. It clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_add_track which adds new tracks.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., resolve_add_track for new tracks) or conditions for use (e.g., track must exist, required identification parameters).

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