track_align_end_to_end

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions alignment and sequential ordering, but does not explain if the operation is destructive, whether it rearranges clips within tracks, or how it handles gaps or overlapping regions. Key behavioral traits are omitted.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second provides a crucial prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks details about the effect on the timeline (e.g., whether tracks overlap, whether gaps are removed) and does not specify the return value or success indication. A slightly more complete description would improve usability.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to elaborate on them. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter-level detail because none exist, but it correctly implies the tool operates on the currently selected tracks.

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 clearly states the action ('Align selected tracks end-to-end') and the resource ('tracks'). The adverb 'sequentially' reinforces the behavior. The tool is distinct from siblings like 'track_mix_and_render' or 'track_remove' because none others describe an alignment operation.

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 only usage hint is 'Select the tracks first', which is a prerequisite. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or typical scenarios. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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