cw_add_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that this is a mutation, that the operation is GUI-mediated, and critically that success confirmation is weak ('the only insert confirmation available without a computer-use runtime'). That is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether the change is undoable or what failure looks like.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with the core action and prerequisite first, and no filler. Minor issues: the embedded Chinese menu name and the modified-marker sentence are dense, but both carry 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?

For a 2-param, 0-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the valid kinds, and the return/confirmation story. It is nearly complete, missing only how to verify afterwards (cw_list_tracks) and undo/irreversibility, which matter for an add operation.

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 50% and the description mostly restates what the schema already contains ('kind: midi | audio | bus | folder | aux'). It adds no semantics for 'name' beyond the schema's 'applied only as a hint' note, but it does surface the enum values prominently, so it earns the baseline rather than falling below it.

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+resource ('Add a track to the open project') and the mechanism (SONAR's 插入 menu), which an agent can act on. It does not differentiate from close siblings like cw_add_song_tracks or cw_insert_track_template, so naming alone won't route the agent among the several track-creation 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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires a project to be open — the 插入 menu does not exist without one'), which is useful when-not context. However it never points to alternatives (cw_add_song_tracks, cw_insert_track_template, cw_list_tracks for verification), leaving the agent to infer selection on its own.

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