track_move_up

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 states the action without explaining side effects, failure cases (e.g., track already at top), or any state changes beyond the swap. This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about consequences.

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, tightly-worded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It delivers the core information efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Given there is no annotation coverage and no output schema shown in the context, the description leaves out essential context: what happens on failure (e.g., if the track is already first), whether the operation is reversible, and what the return value indicates. The presence of many sibling tools also suggests more context could be provided to orient the agent.

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?

The schema has no description for track_id (coverage 0%). The description implies track_id identifies the track to move, but it does not explicitly state this or provide any additional meaning (e.g., what values are valid, whether it must be an existing track, or any constraints). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states a specific action (move up) on a specific resource (track) with the clarifying detail 'swap with previous'. This is precise and instantly distinguishes it from the sibling track_move_down. No ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its obvious sibling track_move_down. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The direction 'up' implies the opposite of 'down', but no explicit routing or decision criteria are provided.

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