create_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the returned result describes known instruments ('what they are and how they behave'), which is real information beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about side effects on existing tracks when position is used, permissions, reversibility, or failure modes for unknown instruments.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, with no padding. The second sentence is slightly imprecise ('what they are and how they behave') but is short and earns its place by describing the result.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's note about returned instrument metadata is genuinely needed and present. Still, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, it omits the effect of inserting at a position and any error behavior, leaving real gaps.

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 80%, so the schema already documents color, position, instrument, and show_instrument (only 'name' is bare). The description reinforces the instrument concept and notes the post-condition of loading an instrument, but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adds a track') and adds the meaningful qualifier that an instrument can be attached so MIDI produces sound. This distinguishes it from adjacent tools like create_midi_item or create_bus, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The phrase 'optionally with an instrument so MIDI on it makes sound' hints at a common case but never tells the agent when to prefer create_track over apply_track_template, create_bus, or other track-creation paths.

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