set_target_track

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's effect on insert/overwrite edits and the one-per-type constraint. It could mention side effects like automatic untargeting of previous tracks, but the constraint implies this.

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, no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded, stating the action and purpose first, then the important constraint. Very efficient.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose and constraint. It could briefly mention the effect on previous targeting to be fully complete, but not necessary.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (track_type, track_index, targeted). The description adds context by explaining what targeting means (active for edits). This adds 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 ('Set a track as targeted') and its purpose ('active for insert/overwrite edits'). It also distinguishes from siblings like set_all_tracks_targeted by noting the constraint of one video and one audio track at a time.

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 explains when to use the tool (to make a track active for edits) and implies when not to use it (if targeting all tracks, use set_all_tracks_targeted). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools, which would elevate it to a 5.

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