cw_add_song_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the ~19s per-insert cost (menu post plus verification wait), the ~2 minute total for six tracks, that each track gets SONAR's default instrument, that plugin loading is a separate UI step, and that budgetMs causes partial completion with unattempted roles reported.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and ordered role list, then cost, then the invocation advice. Four dense sentences, each carrying non-redundant information, though the timing rationale is restated once in both title-like prose and the closing recommendation.

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 two-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers side effects, timing, partial-failure reporting and defaults. What it omits is what the call returns and how it behaves if matching tracks already exist, which matters for idempotency.

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 coverage is only 50% (roles is undescribed in-schema), but the description compensates by explaining that roles selects a subset and that ordering follows the canonical sequence. budgetMs's own schema text already covers its semantics well; the description adds the cost rationale behind the defaults.

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 (add MIDI tracks) plus the exact role set and ordering, so the agent knows precisely what gets created. The only gap is that it never names cw_add_track or cw_insert_track_template, so the boundary against those siblings is left implicit.

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?

Gives real usage guidance: pass `roles` to add a subset, and pair `roles` with a matching `budgetMs` rather than requesting all six in one call. It stops short of stating when this tool should be chosen over cw_add_track, which it superficially overlaps with.

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