live_track_state

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

No annotations, so description carries full behavioral load. It discloses non-obvious traits: returns the mixer channel, restores track selection, and that mute is not on Studio One's undo stack. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or how duplicate/hide affect project state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and action list, then return/side-effect and undo caveat. No redundancy; each sentence adds useful information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, with 2 params at 0% schema coverage. The description covers return value, selection restoration, and undo caveat for a multi-action tool, making it mostly complete, though it omits error handling and optionality of track for showAll.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains action enum semantics (including showAll unhides every track) and that track is specified by name. It does not clarify that track is optional/ignored for showAll, and adds little about track name format.

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 specific actions (toggle arm/monitor/mute/solo, hide, duplicate, showAll) on the track resource, and mentions live_undo as an undo alternative. It does not differentiate from other track-management siblings like live_tracks or live_add_track, but the verb+resource is clear.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for mute: use toggle again rather than live_undo, naming the alternative and condition. For other actions it only implies usage through descriptions, with no when-to-use versus add_track/select_track.

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