set_all_tracks_targeted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool sets all tracks targeted or untargeted, implying a state change. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility. For a simple boolean toggle, this is adequate but minimal, scoring 3.

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 consists of two concise sentences: one stating the action and the other providing a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, achieving a perfect score.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a practical use case. It lacks default behavior for 'track_type' (default both) but is otherwise sufficient. A score of 4 reflects adequate completeness given tool simplicity.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('targeted' and 'track_type'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('set') and the resource ('all tracks targeted or untargeted'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'set_target_track' which targets a single track, but the name and description imply a bulk operation, warranting a score of 4.

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 includes a specific use case: 'Useful before insert/overwrite edits.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, earning a score of 4.

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