add_track

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'add' without disclosing effects on existing tracks, undo behavior, or how the track_type parameter influences the operation. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and earns its place.

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 very simple tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, this is minimally viable. However, the lack of any parameter explanation and the absence of behavioral details (e.g., what 'new track' means, default type) leave gaps, so it is not fully complete.

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 one parameter (track_type) with a default but no description or enum, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention track_type at all, leaving its meaning and allowed values completely unexplained. The description should have compensated for the schema gap but did not.

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 pattern: 'Add a new track to the current timeline.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_timeline (creates a new timeline) and append_to_timeline (adds clips), and it specifies the scope ('current timeline').

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 provides clear context by mentioning 'current timeline,' which implies it should be used when you want to add a track to the active timeline. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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