add_track

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says tracks are empty and lists track types, but it does not mention where tracks are added, whether this is destructive or reversible, or what side effects occur.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the track_type clarification 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 simple two-optional-param mutation with an output schema, the core action and key parameter meaning are covered. However, the description does not specify the target context, such as the active timeline, or any operational conditions, leaving the agent to infer them.

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 has 0% property description coverage, but the description adds real value by enumerating valid track_type values. 'count' is not explicitly described, but its meaning is self-evident from 'Add one or more' and the schema default of 1.

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?

States a specific action on a specific resource: adding one or more empty tracks, and it narrows track_type to video, audio, or subtitle. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_image, add_marker, or set_track_name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites such as needing an open timeline. The description only restates what the tool does without routing the agent to the right context.

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