set_track_freeze_state

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that freezing renders live material to audio, mutates audible content until unfrozen, fails closed on the tested Live version, and binds observed state for future compatibility. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense sentences carry the purpose, compatibility caveat, and destructive warning without wasted words. The only minor inefficiency is the slightly vague 'Plan or toggle guarded track freeze' phrasing that takes a moment to parse.

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 destructive, two-phase tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential warnings and failure/compatibility context, and the schema fills the parameter details. It could be more complete by explicitly walking through the dry-run-to-confirmation flow, but the combination of description and schema is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already explains all six parameters including dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning plan/toggle behavior, which keeps this at the baseline.

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 the resource (track freeze) and the action (plan/toggle set), and it clarifies that the operation mutates audible content, so an agent can distinguish this write tool from read-only freeze inspection. It does not explicitly name a sibling like get_track_freeze_state, and the word 'toggle' slightly obscures that the frozen parameter requests a specific state rather than flipping current state.

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 implies a plan-then-execute workflow ('Plan or toggle guarded track freeze') and explains the failure mode on Live 12.4.5, which gives useful operational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_track_freeze_state, nor does it spell out the recommended two-phase dry-run/commit invocation.

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