lock_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds the consequence 'prevent/allow editing', which goes beyond the raw action. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, whether the lock affects clips already on the track, or any prerequisites like an active sequence. This is a minimal but non-zero disclosure.

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 verb and resource, and contains no extraneous words. It earns its place by clearly stating the action and purpose without elaboration.

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 with 4 fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The purpose and effect are covered, and the schema handles parameters. It could be improved by noting prerequisites (e.g., sequence must be open) but overall it provides sufficient context for reliable 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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Whether to lock (true) or unlock (false)', 'The ID of the sequence'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Locks or unlocks') and resource ('a track') with the purpose ('to prevent/allow editing'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like toggle_track_visibility, which controls visibility, and rename_track, which changes names.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to lock or unlock a track for editing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among the siblings there is no other lock/unlock tool, so the usage context is clear. A slight omission is not mentioning when not to use it (e.g., if the track is already in the desired state).

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