track_add

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It says 'Add a track' but does not explain where the track is added (at a specific index or appended), what happens to existing tracks, or any side effects. The index parameter implies placement but is not discussed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Efficient but lacks structure for parameters. Could be improved by adding a brief list or example.

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?

With 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It fails to explain track_type values, index behavior, or return value. The sibling list suggests many track operations, but this tool's role is not fully delineated.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It partially covers audio_type by listing possible values (mono, stereo, etc.). However, track_type (required) and index are not explained at all, leaving significant gaps.

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 'Add a track' which is a clear verb+resource, but it does not specify what type of track (audio/video) or where it is added (e.g., current timeline). The mention of audio_type suggests a focus on audio, but track_type parameter is required and unexplained, leaving ambiguity.

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 alternatives like timeline_append or insert_title. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requires an open timeline). The description lacks any context for correct usage.

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