create_return_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses one behavioral trait (appending at end) but omits side effects, required permissions, impact on session state, or return value details. For a tool that creates a new element, more behavioral context is 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 description is brief but ends awkwardly with 'Parameters:' and no content. While it is concise, the incomplete section detracts from structure. Every sentence earns its place, but the trailing colon is a minor flaw.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the core function. However, it lacks context about the initial state of the created track (e.g., empty, with default settings) and does not explain how it relates to sibling tools like set_send_level or get_return_tracks, which would help complete the picture.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and there is no need to describe parameters. The description's mention of 'Parameters:' is incomplete but harmless. The behavioral note about appending adds value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'return track', explicitly calling it a 'send/FX' track, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_midi_track and create_audio_track. It also specifies that return tracks are 'appended at the end of the return track list.'

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 such as create_midi_track or get_return_tracks. It does not mention prerequisites, restrictions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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