add_sample_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a sample track' and does not mention side effects, whether the track is created empty, whether a project must be loaded, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens in the current project context.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact Args list. Every line provides useful information and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The parameter explanations and output schema cover the basic call mechanics, but the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral context for a mutating tool with no annotations. An agent still needs to infer when a sample track is appropriate and what side effects to expect, so the description is only minimally complete.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by documenting all four parameters with meaningful details: track name, mixer_channel '0=Master', volume range '0-200', and panning range '-100 to +100'. This adds real value beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 a sample track for arranging audio files.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_instrument_track, add_automation_track, and add_pattern_track, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the other track-creation siblings. The phrase 'for arranging audio files' implies a use case, but it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as add_instrument_track or add_vst_track.

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