lock_track

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the two possible state changes and the non-active-sequence allowance, which is valuable. However, it avoids details such as whether already-locked tracks cause an error, whether the operation is fully reversible, authorization requirements, or whether the call returns a status object.

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 only two short sentences. It places the core behavior first and then adds the most important constraint. Every sentence earns its keep; there is no redundant title or vague filler.

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 structurally simple and the schema covers all parameters, so the description is close to complete. It explains the outcome and notes the non-active-sequence exemption, which is the key context that is not in the schema. The main gap, in the absence of an output schema, is that no statement about return value or failure behavior is given; but for a track-locking primitive this is a minor omission.

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%, so each parameter already has a meaningful meaning. The description adds only the editing/readability semantic and the non-active-sequence context, which is useful but does not go beyond the structured fields. The baseline score of 3 is therefore appropriate.

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-plus-resource construction: 'Locks or unlocks a track to prevent/allow editing.' This immediately identifies the action and the target, and distinguishes it from related track operations such as mute_track or toggle_track_visibility. It also adds a helpful scope clarification that the sequence does not need to be active.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a track needs to be editable or non-editable. It also includes a meaningful precondition fact, that the sequence does not have to be active. It does not explicitly list alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the operation itself is unique among the siblings.

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