Upload track

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: file size and duration limits, supported formats, the PRO requirement for artwork, and a directive to confirm with the user. It does not mention side effects like duplicate tracks on repeated calls, but the provided context is strong.

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 four tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by limits, formats, an important permission caveat, and a user-confirmation instruction. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 22-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers key constraints and permission requirements but omits return behavior, error cases, and details about account selection or default values. It is adequate for making a basic call but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all outcomes.

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 only 50%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only adds meaning for a few parameters: file_path (local audio file), artwork_path (PRO only), and title/sharing/file (confirmation focus). Most of the remaining 22 parameters rely on schema descriptions, which leaves a moderate gap.

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 'Upload an audio file from the local filesystem as a new track', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and source. It also explicitly says 'new track', which distinguishes it from update_track, delete_track, and search-related siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: uploading a local file as a new track for the logged-in user, with explicit limits and a user-confirmation requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as 'use update_track to modify an existing track', 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.