track_fx_move

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds the positional semantics (0-based indices, 0 = beginning of chain) but doesn't disclose behavior like what happens if indices are out of range, whether the move is relative to current position, or if the operation is atomic. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The Args section is clear and structured. It could be slightly more compact, but every sentence earns its place. The 0-based clarification is valuable.

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 reorder operation with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, track_index is undocumented, and there's no mention of error behavior (e.g., invalid indices, FX not found). The output schema is absent, but for a move operation the return value is likely trivial. The missing track_index documentation is the main 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 compensate. It explains fx_index and new_position, but track_index is completely undocumented in both the description and the schema. The description adds meaning for two of three parameters, but the missing track_index is a significant gap. The 0-based indexing clarification is helpful.

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 action: moving an FX plugin to a new position within the same track's FX chain. It specifies the resource (FX plugin, track's FX chain) and the operation (move). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like track_fx_get_list or track_fx_delete, but the verb 'move' and the positional semantics make the purpose clear.

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 implies usage context: it's for reordering FX within a track's chain. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but the operation is unique among siblings. It doesn't mention prerequisites like the track_index parameter or that the FX must exist, but the parameter list covers that. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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