cw_set_track_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses the UI-level mechanism (double-click, paste, Enter), the Unicode/Chinese handling that motivates the tool, and that the result is verified by reading the name back. It doesn't say what happens when verification fails or whether a failed rename leaves a partial edit, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences: the action first, then preconditions. Minor cost is jargon ("the CakeScript route this replaces") that an agent may not decode, but every clause carries 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers mechanism and prerequisites but leaves the parameter meaning (index semantics) and the exact shape/meaning of the `verified` result unspecified. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is documented in the schema, so the description must compensate — but it never explains that `index` is the 1-based track index, nor mentions the 128-character name limit or non-empty constraint. Only "name field" loosely hints at the `name` parameter.

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 ("Rename a track") and even the mechanism (editing the strip's name field), which distinguishes it cleanly from cw_list_tracks, cw_get_track, and the cw_set_track_* siblings that change volume/pan/mute rather than identity.

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 concrete preconditions ("Needs a project open and the track visible in the Track view") and notes it replaces the CakeScript route, implicitly steering away from cw_run_command for this task. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a 5.

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