Update track

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety hints, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists fields without explaining partial vs full updates, effect on unspecified fields, or return behavior. There is no mention of whether the operation is atomic or what conditions are required, leaving significant ambiguity 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and concise list. However, it reads as a run-on list and could be structured better (e.g., separating fields into categories). It is appropriately sized for a simple update tool but not perfectly organized.

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 tool with 10 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotation context, the description is minimal. It does not explain valid combinations, whether type changes are allowed, or what the 'parameters' object accepts. The absence of usage examples or side-effect notes leaves the agent under-informed 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names several updatable fields but omits others like octave, waveform, instrumentKind, and instrumentName. It also fails to explain the 'parameters' object structure or the meaning of 'oscillator' relative to 'waveform'. This is incomplete and only partially helps the agent understand the parameters.

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 updates a track and lists the specific fields (name, color, type, instrument, preset, oscillator, instrument parameters). The verb 'update' plus resource 'track' distinguishes it from siblings like add_track, remove_track, and update_audio_clip.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need to modify track properties. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not explain when to use update_track versus other update tools like update_effect or update_audio_clip.

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