audio_add_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that this is an additive mutation; it does not explain side effects on existing tracks, whether the operation is reversible, what validation occurs, or what success/failure responses look like.

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 single sentence is concise and free of filler, but it is not appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions. It achieves brevity by omitting necessary parameter and behavioral detail, making it under-specified rather than well-structured.

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 6 parameters, 2 required fields, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line summary is far from complete. An agent cannot reliably know what inputs mean, what the operation will do to the composition, or what outcome to expect.

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 0%, and the description provides only minimal high-level context: 'audio track' hints at media_id and 'composition' hints at comp_id. The optional parameters start, duration, trim_start, and volume are entirely unexplained, including their units and how they interact with each other.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Add an audio track to the composition') and is not a tautology of the tool name. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like comp_add_clip, audio_mix, or comp_set_audio_mix, so an agent cannot tell whether this creates a new audio track or adds a clip into an existing composition timeline.

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 about when to choose audio_add_track over related tools, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., media must already be imported), and no exclusions. The only signal is the tool name and the generic operation, which is insufficient for selecting among the many composition/audio siblings.

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