track_add_label

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the track starts 'empty' (behavioral state), but lacks information about return values, side effects, idempotency, or what happens when called multiple times.

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 a single 8-word sentence with zero redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and target, earning its place efficiently.

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 (no parameters, no complex output), the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it could be improved by clarifying that label tracks are for text/markup annotations rather than audio, given the audio-focused sibling tools.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (vacuously true). Per rubric guidelines, 0 parameters establishes a baseline of 4. No parameter semantic information is needed or provided in the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with clear resource ('empty label track') and scope ('to the project'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like track_add_mono/track_add_stereo (audio tracks) and label_add (adding labels to existing tracks) by specifying 'label track'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention that label tracks are for text annotations or when to prefer this over track_add_mono/stereo.

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