add_track

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it returns an error if the exact requested count cannot be added. However, it does not explain what 'verified' means, whether tracks are partially added before failing, or what side effects beyond adding tracks occur.

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 very concise: two short sentences, both informative and necessary. No redundant information or verbose elaboration.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with a full schema and useful annotations, the description covers the core behavior and a notable failure mode. However, it omits context such as needing an active sequence, what the success return value looks like, and whether tracks are added at the end of the sequence or at a specific position, leaving some ambiguity.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters with enum and default information, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional semantic value for parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('add') and the resource ('verified video or audio tracks to the active sequence'), which is specific and differentiated from many unrelated sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling 'add_tracks', and the term 'verified' is ambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_tracks' or other track manipulation tools. It mentions the active sequence but does not clarify the prerequisite of having an active sequence or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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