track_reorder_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether it is undoable, whether reordering shifts other tracks' indexes, or whether project_path must refer to an open project. "Move" hints at mutation but nothing more is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good structure, but the terseness crosses into under-specification for a three-parameter mutating tool rather than being efficiently complete.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without the semantics needed to call this correctly: index base/range, index shifting effects, and project scoping. For a mutation tool this is a clear gap.

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% across three parameters. The phrase "new position" loosely gestures at the index parameter but never states whether it is 0-based, what range is valid, or whether it is an insertion point versus a final position. track_id and the optional project_path (what project context it selects) are entirely unexplained.

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 ("Move a track") and adds scope ("to a new position in the track order"), which is enough to distinguish it from track_set_volume_tool, track_set_mute_tool, or track_remove_tool. It stops short of naming any sibling or contrasting behavior, so it does not reach the top band.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reorder versus deleting and re-adding a track, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the track must be loaded in a session or project), and no mention of what happens to the tracks between the old and new positions. The agent gets a purpose but no usage context.

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