add_track

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a track,' with no mention of side effects, scope, prerequisites, return behavior, or consequences of the 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 short but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name, and it provides no structured information that helps with invocation.

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, no output schema, and a bare tautological description, an agent has almost no context for calling this tool correctly. The definition is incomplete for even basic selection and 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% and the description adds no meaning for track_id or kind. The enum in the schema gives option names, but the description does not explain how the parameters relate to the action or what values mean in practice.

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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name: 'Add a track.' It names a generic verb and object but does not explain what a track is in this context or how it differs from sibling tools like add_asset, add_clip, or add_audio.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus the many alternatives. The only implicit signal is the name itself, which is insufficient to route an agent to the correct operation among more than 30 siblings.

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