fold_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, reversibility, what happens to the track contents, or any UI/audio impact. This is minimal and leaves the agent without important context.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one clear verb phrase and a short parameter explanation. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the action.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It doesn't mention the inverse operation (unfold_track), potential errors (e.g., non-group track), or the effect on track content, which would be useful context for an agent.

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 description explicitly defines track_index as 'the index of the group track', adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema title 'Track Index'. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of description (0% coverage).

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, 'Fold (collapse)', and a specific resource, 'a group track', which clearly states the tool's function. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'unfold_track' by focusing on the collapsing action.

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 the tool should be used to collapse group tracks, and identifies the required input (track_index of a group track). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unfold_track', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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