Lock Track

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool reads the state back to verify the change, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain what locking a track prevents or whether special permissions are needed.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the verification step without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the core purpose and verification behavior. It is nearly complete, with the main omission being guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling track-state tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including that locked is a boolean and track_index is 0-based. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a video track's lock state'), making the action clear. It implicitly separates lock state from sibling actions like mute_track or toggle_track_visibility, but it never explicitly names an alternative or states the distinguishing condition.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use lock_track instead of related track tools such as mute_track, toggle_track_visibility, or rename_track. The read-back detail does not tell the agent which situations call for locking a track or when not to use it.

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