set_fold_state

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

The description discloses the core behavior (fold/unfold) and the error condition for non-group tracks. Annotations already indicate non-destructive, and the description aligns with that, adding useful detail without contradiction.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential action and error case. However, the lack of parameter descriptions slightly reduces completeness, though the tool is straightforward.

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%, so the description should add meaning beyond the schema. However, it provides no explanation of the parameters ('folded' and 'track_index'), leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone.

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 tool folds/collapses or unfolds a group track, using specific verbs and resource. It references sibling tool get_group_info for checking track type, distinguishing it from other track manipulation tools.

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 explains that the tool is for group tracks only and errors otherwise, advising to check with get_group_info. This provides clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it beyond the error condition.

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