tracks_update

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics ("Only the fields given change"), the return value, and the undo/session-recording distinction for solo ("solo is monitoring and is not recorded"). That last point is genuinely non-obvious behavior an agent could not infer from idempotentHint/destructiveHint alone.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its mutable fields, then the update semantics, then the side effects. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

Covers what it mutates, how partial updates behave, what it returns, and the undo/monitoring caveat — sufficient for a 7-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. Only routing guidance to sibling tools is missing.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, including the pan and volume_db ranges the description repeats. The one meaningful addition is the patch semantics ("Only the fields given change"), which is only weakly implied by additionalProperties:false plus a single required field.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ("Change") and resource ("a track's name, fader, pan, mute, solo or colour"), which is unambiguous against siblings like tracks_create, tracks_delete and tracks_move. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly distinguishes itself from those siblings by name.

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?

Usage is only implied: the field list and "Only the fields given change" tell an agent this is for modifying an existing track, but there is no explicit "use this instead of X when Y" and no mention that reordering belongs to tracks_move or renaming-on-create to tracks_create.

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