cassette_upload_track_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a prerequisite and lists file types. It fails to mention what happens during/after upload (e.g., overwriting, versioning), success/failure behavior, permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence plus a requirement, which is concise. However, it omits critical information that could be added without much verbosity (e.g., behavior, parameter details). It is not overly verbose but leaves gaps.

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 the tool's complexity (upload with multiple file types, 3 required params, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, file size limits, and how the Google Drive link is used. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation is offered.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (localPath). The tool description does not explain trackId or fileType beyond the bare enum list. The enum values are listed but not described (e.g., what 'promo' vs 'verticalVideos' implies). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a strong verb ('Upload') and specifies the resource ('artwork, audio, promo images, footages, or vertical videos from a local path'). It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling upload tools (e.g., upload_footage, upload_final) by focusing on track-related file types.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Google Drive linked') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_footage or upload_final. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or 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.