select_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real side effect: selection is a UI-state change that surfaces the track's devices panel. It says nothing about permissions, what happens on an invalid index, or whether the selection persists across other calls, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and appends the useful side effect as a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly what leaves the parameter and usage gaps.

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 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the high-level action. An agent must guess at the kind/index semantics and at error behavior, so the definition is incomplete for correct 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 neither parameter is mentioned in the description. The ambiguous interaction between the "kind" enum (track/return/master) and "track_index" — e.g. whether the index space shifts for returns or master — is left entirely unaddressed, and the description adds nothing 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Select a track") and clarifies the scope as UI selection rather than a data read, which separates it from get_track_info and set_track. It does not explicitly name or exclude the nearest siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical "shows its devices at the bottom" implies why an agent would select a track (to expose its device chain before device operations), giving a usable hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like select_clip or get_track_info.

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