arm_track

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

The description only states the core action without disclosing behavioral details like prerequisites, side effects on other tracks, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is insufficient.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but it is too sparse for a tool with two parameters and no usage context, resulting in underspecification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and two parameters, the description lacks information about the return value, the effect of arming/disarming, and any prerequisites, making it incomplete for an 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 does not mention the two parameters ('track_index' and 'armed') or explain how they control the arm/disarm action. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond parameter names and types.

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 clearly states the tool arms or disarms a track for recording, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_track' or 'delete_track' by the action 'arm/disarm'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as requiring the track to be stopped or handling conflicts with other recording states.

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