cw_insert_track_template

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose a prerequisite and a verification behavior (confirming via the strip accessibility tree), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about what happens when the template name is not found, whether the insert is undoable, or where the new track lands.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier forms, followed by the verification step and the discovery pointer. No filler.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, input forms, prerequisite, and how success is confirmed. Failure behavior and undo semantics are the remaining gaps.

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 100% and the schema already documents name with an example, so the description's "by name (or full .cwx path)" mostly restates it. Baseline 3 applies; no additional syntax or resolution rules are added beyond the schema.

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 (Insert) and resource (track template) plus the accepted identifier forms, and distinguishes itself from cw_list_track_templates and the generic cw_add_track. It also describes the post-insert confirmation step, so the agent knows exactly what the call accomplishes.

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 an explicit precondition ("Needs a project open") and routes the agent to cw_list_track_templates for discovery. It stops short of stating when to prefer cw_add_track or what to do if the project is closed, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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