add_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully reveal one side effect — that setting a singer auto-applies a default phonemizer and renderer 'unless given' — but says nothing about whether this mutates the current project, what happens on name collision, error behavior, or what is returned (e.g. a track id).

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 purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are short, but the full Japanese translation duplicates every statement without adding information for a single agent call, roughly doubling length. The one genuinely valuable detail (phonemizer accepted formats) is buried mid-block rather than highlighted.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the singer/phonemizer coupling but omits the 'name' parameter's meaning, the return value, and any precondition about an open project. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent could trip over.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four undocumented parameters. It does add real meaning for 'phonemizer' (full type name, class name, or tag, with concrete examples like 'EN ARPA') and implies the singer/renderer/phonemizer interaction, but 'name' and 'renderer' remain entirely unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add a track'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it gives no signal for distinguishing this from the near-identical sibling 'ustx_add_track', leaving the agent to guess which add is appropriate.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a project must already be open), and no mention of alternatives such as ustx_add_track, import_tracks, or new_project. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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