Add track

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation, and the description adds that the track is linked to specific instrument slot types. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites like an open project, or how adding interacts with existing tracks, so the additional behavioral context is limited.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the action, resource, and a key distinction. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 absence of an output schema and the sparse annotations, the description leaves out parameter semantics, prerequisites, and usage context. An agent might understand the high-level action but cannot confidently determine optional field values or when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools.

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 0%, and the description only partially maps to the 'type' and 'instrumentKind' parameters. It does not clarify 'note', 'color', or the meaning of default values, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's enum names.

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 uses a specific action 'Add' with a clear resource 'track' and distinguishes between instrument and audio tracks. It also mentions the link to built-in, sampler, WAM, or VST3 slots, which separates it from sibling tools like add_audio_clip or add_effect.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_track, remove_track, or add_audio_clip. The description simply states what the tool does without any exclusions or contextual triggers.

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