create_caption_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly states the tool mutates the sequence by creating a caption track, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing caption tracks are replaced), necessary permissions, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The core action and prerequisite are front-loaded, and the input guidance ('Pass the SRT project item ID directly') is efficient and clear.

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 description covers the main prerequisites (imported file, project item ID) and clearly states the action, which is adequate for a simple creation tool. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or return value, and with no output schema this information is absent. The related sibling read_sequence_captions suggests a caption workflow, but the description does not connect them. Overall, it is functional but not comprehensive.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal new meaning. It reinforces that projectItemId is the SRT project item ID and implies the file was imported via import_media, which slightly exceeds the schema. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds a small but useful contextual nuance.

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 verb 'Creates' and the resource 'caption track on a sequence', plus the source 'from an imported caption/subtitle file'. It is specific and distinguishes this from any sibling tool, since no other tool creates caption tracks (read_sequence_captions reads them).

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 a clear prerequisite: the file must be imported via import_media, and the project item ID is passed directly. It indirectly implies when to use it (when you have an SRT project item) and implicitly excludes cases without such a file. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not' guidance.

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