live_create_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses kind, index default, and that it returns track info, but omits behavior of 'confirm' parameter, potential side effects (e.g., affecting arrangement), or any prerequisites. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences effectively communicate the core purpose and key parameters. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could include a brief note about 'confirm' without significant bloat.

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?

Given moderate complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers the main functionality but misses the 'confirm' parameter. With no annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete for safe usage.

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 0%. The description adds meaning for 'kind' (allowed values) and 'index' (default to end), but does not mention the 'confirm' parameter at all. Therefore, it partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Create a new track' with specific verb and resource, and lists possible values for 'kind' (midi, audio, return) and default behavior for 'index'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like live_delete_track or live_create_clip.

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 implies the tool is for creating tracks, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor provides any when-not-to-use context. With siblings handling other entities (clips, scenes) it's somewhat clear, but lacks explicit guidance.

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