arm_track

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

The description adds the dual-mode notion of 'plan or set,' and the annotations already establish this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. It does not explain concurrency guards or the single-use confirmationToken in prose, though those details are present in the schema; this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 filler or redundancy. It is compact and easy to parse, even though it skips details that the schema already provides.

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 tool with a two-phase dry-run/confirm workflow, the description alone is minimal, but the parameter descriptions fill in the planHash/confirmationToken behavior. With no output schema and no explicit summary of the response shape, the overall definition is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description contributes only the 'one exact track' scoping and does not add meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific action (plan or set) and a precise resource (record-arm state of one exact track), which is enough to distinguish it from bulk mixer or transport tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just 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 about when to use the dry-run planning mode versus the confirming execution mode, nor any mention of alternative tools such as set_transport_recording_context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter schema.

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