tracks_update

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It states 'full replacement' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether previous releases are lost permanently), required permissions, or if the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentences: the first states the action concisely, the second details the most complex parameter. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the core action and the releases parameter well. However, it omits details about return values (no output schema) and does not mention the requirement for an active edit context (though schema hints at it). For a tool with four required params, this is mostly complete.

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?

The schema covers packageName, editId, and track with descriptions, leaving releases undocumented. The description fills this gap by detailing the structure of releases objects (versionCodes, status, userFraction, etc.), adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Full replacement of track state,' which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like tracks_patch (partial update) and tracks_create (new track). The verb 'replacement' and resource 'track state' are precise.

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 use for complete overwrite but does not explicitly guide when to use vs alternatives like tracks_patch. No mention of context or prerequisites (e.g., need for an edit). This is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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