create_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains track renumbering, resolved-index semantics, returned status/counts, and the measured Live version. The first line promises a resolved index while the Returns section mentions a dictionary, leaving a minor ambiguity about where the index appears.

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 text is organized into Args, Returns, and Note sections, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes technical detail. There is no filler or repetition.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description covers parameter semantics, edge cases, side effects, return shape, and version context. An agent can invoke it correctly without needing extra inference.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does this clearly: kind choices, insertion-index behavior including -1, and name's optionality, all adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 names a specific action, 'Insert a MIDI, audio, or return track', and states the output it returns. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_clip or delete_track by focusing on track creation and index resolution.

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 provides explicit per-kind behavior and index semantics, including the special -1 case and the fact that index is ignored for return tracks. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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