set_track_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set the name') but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting linked clips), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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's moderate complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basics but lacks behavioral context and detailed parameter guidance, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe invocation.

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 both parameters ('track_index' and 'name') with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't clarify parameter constraints (e.g., valid index ranges, name length limits) or provide examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('name of a track'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_clip_name' or 'set_tempo', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during playback or editing), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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