insert_track_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that templates can contain multiple tracks, existing tracks shift down when position is specified, and inserted tracks are left selected. It does not mention permissions, undo/reversibility, or error behavior, but covers the key mutation effects.

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 front-loaded with purpose and preservation behavior, then cleanly documents the two parameters. Every detail earns its place, and examples make the parameter formats immediately usable.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is almost complete: it covers insertion effects, template formats, positioning, and selection behavior. It stops short of explaining return values or failure/undo behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains that template accepts a name or path from list_track_templates, gives examples, and permits an absolute .RTrackTemplate path; it also explains position as a 0-based index that shifts existing tracks down, with omission appending at the end.

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 verb and resource: inserting a saved track template into the current project. It distinguishes this from generic track creation by explaining that FX state, routing, folder structure, envelopes, and items are preserved, matching REAPER's native 'Insert track from template' behavior.

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 clearly points to list_track_templates as the source for valid template names and paths, and allows an absolute .RTrackTemplate path. It implies when to use this tool, but does not explicitly contrast it with create_track or state when not to use it.

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