Update a track's label, role, or speaker metadata to identify speakers and organize podcast project timelines.
Update a track's label, role, or speaker metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | ||
| label | No | ||
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "track_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "track_id"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description does not disclose permissions, reversibility, null/reset behavior, or what happens to unspecified metadata fields. For a mutation tool 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too terse for a five-parameter mutation tool, so it falls short of the highest conciseness score that would be earned by a similarly efficient but more informative sentence.
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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and five parameters, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably. Key required parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context are all missing.
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 five parameters. The description names three fields (label, role, speaker) but omits the required track_id and project_path, and provides no detail on null defaults or type semantics. With near-zero schema coverage, the description should compensate far more than it does.
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 (Update), resource (track), and the fields affected (label, role, speaker metadata), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like track_set_volume_tool or track_set_mute_tool. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.
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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only restates the operation, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.