ungroup_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: 'Side effects: none,' 'nothing is deleted under any circumstance,' the CAPABILITY_UNAVAILABLE return, and the WRONG_TYPE edge case are all disclosed. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a refusal-only tool.

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 key caveat is front-loaded before any details, and the labeled sections (Side effects, Example, Edge cases) let an agent skip to what it needs. Every sentence adds information and none 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return codes, side effects, and edge cases adequately. The only real gap is that the track_index parameter is left semantically undocumented.

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% for the single required track_index parameter. The example 'ungroup_track(2)' only confirms that an integer is acceptable, which the schema's type already states; it does not explain indexing base, range, or how to obtain a valid index.

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+resource ('take a track out of its group') and immediately front-loads the critical fact that Live's API cannot perform it. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like move_track_to_group and merge_groups, which the agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 implies the tool should not be called with an expectation of success, and the 'edge cases' note clarifies the not-grouped scenario, but it never explicitly names an alternative or states when to choose this versus a working route. 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.