tracking.add_track

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so this is a mutating operation, yet the description discloses only generic 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' labels. It does not say what changes in the scene (track created on clip, markers added) or what prerequisites apply. There is no contradiction with annotations, but no real behavioral disclosure either.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. It leads with a restatement of the title, then generic risk/maturity labels, none of which inform an agent. No informative content is front-loaded.

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 mutating tracking tool with 7 parameters, an output schema, and a family of tracking siblings, the description supplies none of the context needed to invoke it correctly (what a track is, markers format, clip prerequisites, success behavior). It is far from complete.

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 43%, covering only internal harness params (_requestId, _authorization, _transactionId); the operational params clip, markers, and name have no schema descriptions. The description adds nothing about their meaning or format. With coverage below 50%, the description was required to compensate and did not.

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 restates the command identity ('PartMe Blender Harness command `tracking.add_track`') without stating what adding a track does. The only functional hint comes from the tool name and parameter names (clip, markers, name), not from the description. This is a near-tautology with no verb+resource action statement.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like blender_tracking_load_clip, blender_tracking_setup_scene, or blender_tracking_solve_camera. 'Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' is generic boilerplate, not usage direction. There is no context, no exclusions, and no alternatives.

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