create_return_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it creates a return track but does not mention any side effects, such as default naming, track placement, whether it becomes selected, or if any send routing is auto-configured. This lack of detail for a mutating operation is a significant transparency gap.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and one relevant context note, earning the highest rating.

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 tool is simple: zero parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description captures the core action and purpose. It doesn't cover all potential behavioral nuances, but given the low complexity, the description is reasonably complete. A slightly lower score would be warranted if more context (like default track name) were expected, but it's adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds context about the purpose but doesn't need to explain parameters that don't exist.

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 verb 'Create' with a clear resource 'return track' and adds a parenthetical purpose ('for shared send effects like reverb'), which distinguishes it from other track-creation tools like create_audio_track or create_midi_track.

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 parenthetical explains the intended use case (shared send effects), giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to imply it should be used when a return track is needed.

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