fairlight_insert_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the clip is appended via AppendToTimeline, that audio-track targeting is limited, and that it operates on the current timeline. This is transparent about the main behavioral nuances, though it doesn't cover edge cases like missing timeline or failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides mechanism and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the complete input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, where it operates, the import step, and the track targeting limitation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the two-step process (import then append) and reinforcing the track_index limitation. This adds meaningful value, especially for understanding how the parameters fit into the overall operation.

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 imports an audio file and inserts (appends) it to an audio track on the timeline. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from related tools like media_pool_import_media (which only imports to the Media Pool) and timeline_append_clips (which appends existing clips).

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 the full workflow (import to Media Pool, then append to current timeline) and notes a key limitation about audio-track targeting. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some usage context implicit.

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