Upload a track license

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

No annotations beyond title. The description adds one key behavioral trait: 'Licenses are immutability-governed once the release is live.' It does not cover idempotency or overwrite behavior, which would be helpful for a write operation.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, parameter clarification, and behavioral caveat. No wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core usage, required/optional params, and the immutability constraint. It could mention file format restrictions or error cases, but is fairly complete for a file upload tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the meaning of file_path and type and lists optional parameters, but adds little new value beyond the schema.

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 ('Attach a license document to a track'), the resource (track license), and the context (cover or sample). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_track_license or get_track_license.

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 implies when to use (to attach a license for a cover or sample) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like update_track_license for modifying existing licenses.

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