set_track_display

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to carry the safety profile. It still adds real behavioral context: omitted settings are preserved, height=0 resets to REAPER's default, and tracks below the minimum height are not drawn. What is missing is whether hiding a track has side effects on selection or automation, but the added detail is solid for an annotated tool.

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, with the core action first and an Args/Returns block after. Every line carries information, though the Args block documents only height while three parameters go unmentioned, giving it a slightly lopsided structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so including the return shape (tracks with index and hidden_in, the latter only for hidden tracks) is genuinely necessary and supplied. Combined with partial-update semantics and the height edge case, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the index base and per-channel false semantics remain unclear.

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 parameters. It explains height (pixels, 0 means default) and implies show_in_arrange/show_in_mixer via the opening sentence, but never states what false means for each channel or what track_indices expects (zero- vs one-based). It partially compensates rather than fully documenting the parameters.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb plus resource: show/hide tracks in the arrange view and mixer, and set track height. That distinguishes it from nearby setters such as set_track_width, set_track_color, or set_track_volume without needing the schema. It stops short of naming a sibling tool to contrast with, so it is a clear 4 rather than a 5.

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 line 'Settings left out stay as they are' usefully signals partial-update semantics, which tells the agent it can pass only the fields it wants to change. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing away from alternatives like set_track_width. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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