live_select_track

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: the existing selection is replaced unless exclusive is false. It stops there, saying nothing about failure behavior when the exact name does not match, whether the call errors or no-ops, or what the call reports back.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the action and the downstream consequence are front-loaded before the selection-replacement caveat.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a successful selection returns or how an unmatched name surfaces. For a selection-mutating tool with no annotations, the definition is adequate but leaves those two questions open.

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 33% — name and exclusive are undocumented in the schema — and the description compensates by defining the matching rule (exact name) and spelling out exclusive's meaning in prose. Only kind's collision-disambiguation role is left entirely to the schema enum description, so minor gaps remain.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Select a track by exact name") plus the execution context ("running Studio One"), and links the action to its downstream consumer (live_command). It does not differentiate itself from the other look-alike selector in the sibling list (live_select_events), so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "so that selection-based commands (live_command) act on it" implies the workflow context for calling this tool, which is more than nothing. However, it never says when to use this instead of live_tracks or live_select_events, nor what to do when the track is not present, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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