track_move_down

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core behavior—swapping with the next track—but it does not explain what happens at the bottom of the track list, whether the operation can fail, or any side effects beyond the reorder.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the essential action and adds one clarifying detail about the swap, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core invocation adequately. Missing details about boundary behavior (e.g., last track) are minor, and the return value is already addressed by the output schema.

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 description does not mention track_id at all. The parameter is inferable from the tool name and schema title, but the description itself adds no explicit meaning about what the track_id refers to or how it should be supplied.

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, resource, and direction: 'Move track down one position (swap with next).' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling track_move_up by specifying downward movement and the swap mechanism.

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 the usage scenario: use this when a track should move downward in order. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of the track_move_up alternative, and no boundary conditions such as behavior when the track is already last.

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