create_return_track

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the insertion position (appended after existing returns), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether the return track is enabled, has a default device, or affects mixer routing. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 parameterless tool, the description sufficiently covers the core operation and ordering. An output schema exists, so return value details are unnecessary. Some gaps remain around side effects and prerequisites, but the simplicity of the operation warrants a relatively high completeness score.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Baseline 4 applies since no parameter information is needed. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate.

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 specifically states the action ('Create') and resource ('new return track'), and adds a scope qualifier ('appended after existing returns'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_midi_track and create_audio_track, which handle other track types.

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 implies clear usage context: use when you need to create a return track. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not to use, but the verb and resource are unambiguous enough given the sibling names. The 'appended after existing returns' detail provides practical ordering context.

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