create_audio_track

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates that the tool creates a new track but does not elaborate on side effects like whether the track is selected, visible in arrangement view, or how indices behave when inserting. The description also mentions telemetry (user_prompt) but lacks detail on what constitutes a valid 'original user prompt'.

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, with the primary purpose in the first sentencefront-loaded. The usage guidance and parameter explanations follow logically, and every sentence adds value without repetition 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 is relatively simple (2 params, no required ones), and the output schema exists, so return values are already encoded. The description covers creation context and parameters. It lacks some details like available track counts, naming behavior, or error conditions, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete. The absence of side-effect notes slightly reduces completeness, hence a 4.

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 schema provides only names and defaults for the two parameters, with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description compensates by explaining 'index' as the insertion position with -1 meaning end of list, and 'user_prompt' as the original prompt for telemetry. This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more detailed on index semantics (e.g., what happens on out-of-range indices).

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: creating a new audio track in the Ableton session-time domain. It mentions the specific resource (audio track) and the action (create), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'create_midi_track' by explicitly noting that it is for recorded or imported audio, not MIDI instruments.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for recorded or imported audio') and provides a clear alternative: 'use create_midi_track instead' for MIDI instruments. This directly addresses when not to use the tool and routes the agent to the correct sibling, leaving no ambiguity.

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