add_instrument_track

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the add action and parameter ranges; it does not mention whether an existing project is required, whether the addition is reversible, how mixer channels are affected, or any failure behavior. The description adds only core-purpose information.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary and followed by a compact Args block. Every line provides necessary parameter information, including a valuable enum-style list for instrument choices. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

Parameter coverage is thorough and the presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be described. The main gap is the lack of context about requiring an active project and how adding an instrument track relates to mixer channels or other project state, but the description is otherwise sufficient for successful invocation.

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%, and the Args section fully compensates by documenting all five parameters: name with examples, instrument with the complete lowercase plugin list, mixer_channel with 0=Master semantics, volume range 0-200, and panning range -100 to +100. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add an instrument track to the project,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling track-creation tools like add_sample_track, add_automation_track, and add_pattern_track. The track type is explicit, so an agent can understand the tool's role immediately.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling track/mixer tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an open project. The tool name implies usage, but the description provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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