group_tracks

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

Annotations already state it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the Live API limitation (only one track is selectable programmatically) and the self-correcting behavior that anything other than exactly those tracks being grouped is undone. It does not mention an undo requirement for the grouping itself, but the rollback statement covers most of the risk.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the procedure; the parenthetical about the API limitation is placed where it is needed. Nothing is padded, though the final sentence about undo is slightly cryptic out of context.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the genuinely hard part of this tool (the manual selection workaround). The remaining gap is parameter-level detail on the integer track indices, which neither the schema nor the description supplies.

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 carry the burden, and it only partially does: it clarifies that first_track/last_track define a contiguous range and that 'name' is the optional group-track name. It never states whether indices are 0- or 1-based, what happens when first_track equals last_track, or how the name behaves if omitted (schema default is an empty string).

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Group a contiguous range of tracks into a Group Track') plus an optional naming side effect, and the scope (contiguous range) is stated up front. No sibling tool performs grouping, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from set_track_fold or get_track_tree.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: a single track is grouped directly, and for a range the user must pre-select track names by clicking the first and shift-clicking the last before calling. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the prerequisites are unusually specific compared to most definitions.

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