set_track_delay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It adds key behavioral details beyond the schema, such as the ability to use negative delay_ms to pull the track earlier. It does not discuss side effects or reversibility, but for a simple setter this is adequate and meaningful.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers the operation, the meaning of each parameter, and the key behavioral nuance (negative values). Missing details like zero-based indexing are minor and not essential for typical usage.

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 fully compensates. It explains track_index as the index of the track (though somewhat obvious) and, more importantly, clarifies delay_ms semantics, including the ability for negative values to pull the track earlier. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 sets a track's delay compensation in milliseconds, with the effect of nudging the track early or late. This specific verb+resource combination (set + track delay) distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_pan or set_track_volume.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to adjust timing of a track by setting delay compensation). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the precise wording. No alternative tool for delay compensation exists in the sibling list.

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