track_add_mono

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation through 'Add' but fails to specify side effects like track positioning (end vs. insertion point), selection state changes, or return values.

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 single sentence is efficiently front-loaded with zero waste: 'Add' (action), 'new' (state), 'mono' (type distinction), 'audio track' (resource), and 'project' (scope) all earn their place.

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 (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the basic action but omits operational details—such as insertion position relative to existing tracks or whether the new track becomes selected—that would aid sequential tool use.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation guidelines, 0 params establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify 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?

The description provides a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('mono audio track'), and scope ('to the project'). The inclusion of 'mono' effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'track_add_stereo' and 'track_add_label'.

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?

While the 'mono' designation implicitly guides selection over 'track_add_stereo', the description lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites (e.g., 'use this for single-channel audio sources' or 'requires an open project').

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