create_return_track

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context by explaining what a return track is (a send bus). It does not contradict annotations. However, no further behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) are given, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 13-word sentence with parenthetical clarification. It contains no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (assumed but not shown), the description is largely complete. It could mention if the tool returns the created track, but the current text is sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description correctly omits parameter details. With zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no param info but doesn't need to.

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 "Create" and resource "return track", with an explanatory parenthetical defining a return track as a send bus for reverb/delay. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_audio_track or create_midi_track.

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 usage via the parenthetical explanation (shared reverb/delay), but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling tools. Usage is implied but not formally stated.

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