Track Add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what happens to existing tracks, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the return value contains (even though an output schema exists). The only behavioral hint is 'None = audio-only track', which is helpful but insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise: three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the most ambiguous parameter's semantics. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the trickiest parameter (instrument) but omits guidance on required parameters ('project', 'name') and the role of 'pan', 'volume_db', and 'output'. It should do more to aid correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'instrument' parameter somewhat (dict via instrument_help, or 'preset:<name>' via presets_list, None for audio-only), but says nothing about 'project', 'name', 'pan', 'volume_db', or 'output'. Half the parameters remain undocumented, so it adds partial value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a track'), which is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like track_set, track_remove, and bus_add. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use track_add versus alternatives such as project_new, track_model, or bus_add. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project) or exclusions.

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