insert_track

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries some burden. It makes the mutating nature clear ('Insert') and adds that omitted index appends at the end, plus a return value. However, it does not disclose side effects like selection changes, track type, or whether the operation is undoable. With sparse annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, followed by a short Args section and a one-line Returns note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler 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?

For a simple two-parameter insert operation, the description is sufficient: both parameters are explained and the return value is mentioned. The only gap is that 'Info about the created track' is vague about the exact shape, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 fully explain the parameters. It does: index is 0-based, optional, and defaults to appending at the end; name is optional. This adds meaning that the bare input schema completely lacks.

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 and resource: 'Insert a new track at the specified index.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_track, set_track_name, and create_bus. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for how to use the tool: provide an index to insert at a specific position, or omit it to append at the end. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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