live_select_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call mutates selection state ('Replaces the selection unless exclusive is false'), which is non-obvious, but says nothing about failure modes (unmatched name), required connection/state, or reversibility.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the behavioral caveat last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter selection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, downstream dependency, and the key side effect. It is nearly complete; only error handling and preconditions are unstated, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 must compensate, and it does: 'by exact name' constrains the name parameter's matching semantics, and 'Replaces the selection unless exclusive is false' explains what the exclusive flag actually controls. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb (select) and resource (track), plus the environment ('running Studio One') and the reason it matters ('so that selection-based commands (live_command) act on it'). This distinguishes it from siblings like live_select_events (events) and live_tracks (listing) without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 clause 'so that selection-based commands (live_command) act on it' tells the agent when this tool is the right prerequisite step, and the sibling live_command is named explicitly. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion guidance, but the usage context is clear.

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