update_return_track

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists the updatable properties. It omits side effects, mutability implications, permission requirements, or any description of the return value (despite an output schema existing).

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 a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the key action and target properties, containing no unnecessary words.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief to fully inform an agent. It lacks details about parameter behavior (e.g., setting to null) and fails to mention the output schema or any constraints.

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 0%, yet the description adds minimal meaning beyond listing the parameter names (name, volume, pan, mute). It does not explain valid ranges, units, or the nature of 'return_index' (the only required param).

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 action (update) and the resource (return track) and lists the specific properties that can be updated (name, volume, pan, or mute state), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_return_track or delete_track.

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 vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., return track must exist) or conditions. The description merely states what it does without context for usage.

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