select_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses only the core action 'Select a track' but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether it changes the current track focus, highlight in UI, or interacts with other tools). No error handling or reversibility is mentioned, leaving significant behavioral unknown.

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 extremely short and contains no fluff; it provides the essential action and parameter list in two lines. However, it is under-specified, which means it is concise but at the expense of necessary information, so it does not fully earn its place for clarity.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about how track_index is used (zero-based vs one-based), what selection means for subsequent operations, and whether it affects the Live set's current track state. This could lead an agent to misuse the tool.

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 lists 'track_index: The index of the track to select' but this adds minimal detail beyond the schema's property name and type. It doesn't clarify zero-based indexing, valid ranges, or what happens if the index is out of bounds, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description was the only opportunity to explain the parameter.

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 'Select a track' clearly states the action (select) and the resource (track), making it a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like select_rack_chain or select_clip by explicitly targeting tracks, though it doesn't elaborate on the selection context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or effects. The description merely states the action without explaining for what scenarios it is appropriate, such as before modifying a track or in session vs arrangement view.

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