set_track_fold

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that the target must be a group track, but omits whether folding hides child tracks, whether state persists, or how failure on a non-group track is reported. With an output schema present, some of that burden is shifted, so a 3 is fair.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the reason the parameter and behavioral gaps exist.

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 output schema and annotations relieve the description of return-value and safety explanation, and the tool itself is simple. However, with two completely undocumented parameters and no statement of preconditions or effects, the definition is thinner than the available complexity warrants.

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 neither parameter has any documented meaning in the schema itself. The description mentions neither track_index nor folded, leaving the agent to infer that track_index refers to a position in the track list and that folded=true folds rather than unfolds — a real gap given zero schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb pair (fold/unfold) and a specific resource (a group track), which lets an agent know this toggles track-group collapsing. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like group_tracks or get_track_tree, though it never says what a 'fold' visually or functionally does.

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 phrase 'group track' implicitly scopes usage to grouped tracks, hinting at a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of what happens if the target track is not a group. No alternatives or follow-up tools are named.

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