track_set_media_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a mutating 'replace' operation but says nothing about whether the old media is discarded, whether existing clips/edits/transcripts referencing it are invalidated, required file access/permissions, or behavior on failure. For a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 filler, so it is efficiently structured. It is arguably too terse given the undisclosed behavior and parameters, but on the conciseness axis itself there is no waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description should describe side effects, prerequisites, and return behavior. It provides only the core action, leaving most of what an agent needs to invoke it safely unstated.

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 description only loosely maps 'media file' to file_path and 'existing track' to track_id, and says nothing at all about project_path (type, default null, purpose) or about path format expectations. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (replace) and resource (the media file backing an existing track), which clearly separates it from siblings like track_set_meta_tool, track_set_volume_tool, or track_set_mute_tool that mutate other track properties. It is clear but does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the closest relatives, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus track_add_empty_tool, track_set_meta_tool, or track_add, nor any prerequisites (must the track already exist? must it be empty?). The agent is left to infer context entirely from the name and one-line description.

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