move_track_to_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: 'Side effects: none — the request is validated and refused', plus the concrete failure codes (CAPABILITY_UNAVAILABLE, WRONG_TYPE, BAD_INPUT) and the root cause (Track.group_track read-only in the LOM). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the critical caveat, then organized into side-effects, example, and edge-cases blocks. Sentences are short and each carries distinct information; nothing is redundant.

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 or annotations exist, yet the description still documents return codes, side effects, and failure edge cases, which is nearly everything needed to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the unstated semantics of the two indices.

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. The example 'move_track_to_group(4, 1)' gives positional context and the WRONG_TYPE/'non-foldable target' note hints at group_track_index, but neither parameter's meaning is stated outright (which index is the source track vs the target group). Partial compensation only.

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 first clause names a specific verb and resource ('move a track into a Group Track') and immediately clarifies the true nature of the tool: the underlying API cannot do this. That scope statement distinguishes it clearly from siblings like move_track, reorder_tracks, or ungroup_track without opening any schema.

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?

It makes the operative condition explicit ('Live's API cannot do this', 'the request is validated and refused'), so an agent knows this is a validation/probe call rather than a real mutation. It does not name a sibling alternative for achieving the grouping, so it stops just short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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