create_track

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) establish this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the plan-vs-execute duality, which is genuinely useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose the optimistic-concurrency requirement (expectedStateVersion) or the short-lived single-use confirmationToken mechanics, which are significant behavioral traits for a write operation.

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 zero filler. The verb and resource come first, and the distinguishing constraint (insertion index) is placed at the end. Every word earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with a plan-then-commit workflow (dryRun → planHash → confirmationToken) and optimistic concurrency (expectedStateVersion), the description is too thin. It never explains the required call sequence or the fact that execution depends on a prior dry-run token. With no output schema and this workflow complexity, an agent is left to infer the orchestration entirely from parameter descriptions.

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 71%, and the description fills the two gaps: 'audio or MIDI' maps to the undocumented `type` enum, and 'exact insertion index' maps to the undocumented `index` parameter. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, compensating for the uncovered parameters.

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 clear verb ('create') and resource ('audio or MIDI track') with the precise constraint 'at an exact insertion index'. It distinguishes from return-track and scene creation but does not explicitly disambiguate against siblings like create_audio_clip or create_midi_clip, which an agent could confuse with track creation of a given type.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not name alternatives (create_return_track, create_audio_clip, create_midi_clip) or state conditions for choosing this tool over them. The 'Plan or create' phrasing hints at the two-phase workflow but offers no direction on when to plan versus execute.

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