add_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic mutation action ('Add') without explaining side effects, whether duplicate tracks are allowed, what happens if the binding does not exist, or what the tool returns. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and target, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must do more than one sentence. It does not explain workflow context (e.g., create sequence → add actor binding → add track), behavioral caveats, or expected outcomes. Even though the schema documents parameters well, the overall tool context is under-specified for an agent.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., binding_id comes from add_actor_binding or get_sequence_info). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a track to an actor binding in a sequence.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_actor_binding, which adds a binding itself, and create_level_sequence, which creates a sequence. The intended operation is immediately understandable.

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 phrase 'to an actor binding in a sequence' implies the user must already have a sequence and a binding, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated, and no caveats about ordering (e.g., after add_actor_binding). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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