create_caption_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the action (creates a caption track) and the source (imported caption file), but it does not mention potential side effects, such as overwriting existing caption tracks, or any required permissions. It adds some context (the file must be imported first) but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and includes a key detail (pass the SRT project item ID directly) that helps avoid misuse.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, none required beyond the two IDs), the description is quite complete: it explains the input format (imported caption file), provides default behavior for startTime and captionFormat, and states the action clearly. Without an output schema, it could mention what the function returns, but the description suffices for the core task.

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 parameters well. The description adds value by clarifying the source parameter ('SRT project item ID') and mentioning the default for startTime and captionFormat, but since the schema covers everything, the description goes slightly beyond a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a caption track on a sequence from an imported caption/subtitle file. It specifies the resource (sequence and project item) and distinguishes it from siblings like read_sequence_captions by focusing on creation.

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 usage: it mentions the prerequisite of importing a .srt via import_media and tells the user to pass the SRT project item ID directly. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear, and it points to a specific prerequisite tool.

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