ustx_add_track

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not whether track creation is persisted immediately, what happens if name/singer/phonemizer are omitted, whether ordering or existing tracks are affected, or what the caller gets back. The only behavioral hint is the implication that the operation mutates a file on disk.

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 short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence is a verbatim Japanese translation of the first and adds no information for an agent that can already parse the English. For such a minimal description, the redundancy is a meaningful share of the total content.

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?

With four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin for a file-mutating operation. It omits whether the target .ustx must exist, what a successful call produces, and how the new track's defaults are chosen, all of which an agent needs before invoking it.

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% across four parameters, and the description mentions none of them. It does not clarify what `name` defaults to, what a `singer` or `phonemizer` value should look like, or how they interact with existing tracks, so the agent has no semantic guidance whatsoever for the inputs.

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 and resource ("Add a track") and scopes it to a .ustx file, so the agent knows exactly what object is created and in what container. It does not distinguish this from the sibling `add_track` (presumably a non-ustx variant) or from adjacent operations like `ustx_add_melody`, leaving the boundary implicit.

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 this tool versus `add_track`, `ustx_add_melody`, or `import_tracks`, and no stated preconditions (must the file already exist? must a project be open?). The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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