select_rack_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of selecting without mentioning side effects, such as changing the current selection state, whether the change persists, or what happens with invalid indices. No context about reversibility or impact on playback is given.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action and every line provides necessary meaning without redundancy or fluff.

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 has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain key domain concepts like what constitutes a rack device or a chain, nor how to obtain valid index values. It lacks information about error handling, return behavior, or how this selection integrates with other operations, making it insufficient for a novice agent to use correctly.

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?

The description adds a short explanation for each parameter beyond the schema, which has no descriptions. For example, it states track_index is 'the index of the track' and chain_index is 'the index of the chain to select'. However, these explanations are largely tautological and do not clarify constraints, zero-based indexing, or relationships between indices, leaving significant gaps given the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Select a chain in a rack device' which clearly specifies the action (select), the resource (chain), and the context (rack device). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_track, select_scene, or select_clip, as it specifically targets chains within rack devices.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. For instance, it does not mention that the user might need to call get_rack_chains to discover valid chain indices, nor when selection is appropriate in a workflow. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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