create_return_track

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by revealing the plan-or-append behavior and the non-obvious naming nuance: the name is a raw label and Live adds the displayed return-letter prefix. This is meaningful context for both dry-run planning and the eventual append, and it does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states the actionable purpose, and the second explains the one nuance that could otherwise cause a wrong invocation. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and only boolean annotations, the description plus the fully documented schema cover the key decisions: plan vs append, raw-name handling, and the display-name result. It could be stronger by explicitly stating that appending requires a prior dry-run confirmation, but that is already encoded in the dryRun/planHash/confirmationToken parameters.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that `name` is the raw label rather than the final displayed name, and by telling the agent that the result reports the observed display name, which is useful when interpreting the output.

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 concrete operation ('Plan or append a Return Track') and ties it to a specific Live feature (shared send effects via the native bus API), making it distinguishable from generic create_track or set_return_mixer. It also clarifies that the result is the observed display name, so the tool's objective is unambiguous.

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 provides clear contextual scope ('Return Track for shared send effects') and implies the planning/append workflow, so an agent can infer when this tool applies. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with siblings like create_track or set_return_mixer, nor state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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