Upload a track audio/lyrics file

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses async processing, storage destination, and immutability after distribution. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, but the key behaviors are well communicated.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first states purpose and file types; the second covers async processing and immutability. Every sentence is meaningful and front-loaded.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input requirements, async behavior, and post-upload limitations. It could mention size limits or encoding, but existing info suffices for typical usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing 'finalized' audio and listing file type examples (stereo WAV/FLAC, Dolby Atmos, LRC), which clarifies expected content beyond enum definitions.

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 uploads an audio or lyrics file for a track, specifying exact file types (stereo WAV/FLAC, Dolby Atmos, LRC). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_track_audio or get_track_file.

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 advises uploading a 'finalized' file, notes async processing with a reference to get_track_file for state checking, and warns about immutability after distribution. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but provides clear context for proper use.

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