add_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'add' without mentioning side effects, validation behavior, whether existing tracks are replaced, or any required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it extremely concise while still conveying the core action.

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?

The tool is part of a complex sequence-editing suite, but the description omits context like whether the sequence and binding must already exist, or what happens if a track is added twice. However, the schema's binding_id description hints that bindings come from add_actor_binding or get_sequence_info, providing some context. The description is minimally adequate but could be richer.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions and an enum for track_type, so the schema itself is sufficient. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which fits the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specifies the action (add), the object (track), and the context (actor binding in a sequence). It is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_actor_binding or set_playback_range by naming the exact operation and target.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing to create a sequence first or add an actor binding. It simply states the operation without any contextual advice.

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