track_select

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions prerequisite requirement but omits critical behavioral details: whether selection is exclusive (deselects other tracks), whether it clears audio selections within the track, or persistence behavior. '0-based' indexing disclosure is helpful operational context.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with purpose. The 'Args:' section, while slightly informal/docstring-style, is justified given the schema's lack of descriptions. No redundant text, though could integrate parameter description more smoothly into prose.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter selection tool with no output schema. Covers the basic contract but misses selection mechanics (exclusive vs additive) that would help an agent predict side effects when chaining with track_mute, track_remove, or edit operations on specific tracks.

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 has 0% description coverage with no parameter descriptions. Description fully compensates by defining 'track' as 'Track index (0-based)', providing both semantic meaning and format constraint (0-based indexing) that the schema lacks. Essential given the schema failure.

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 specific action ('Select a track') and mechanism ('by index'), distinguishing from sibling selection tools like select_all or select_region which operate on audio content rather than track objects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from track_get_info or clarify whether this selects the track object versus enabling it for editing.

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?

Provides clear prerequisite guidance ('Many operations require selecting a track first'), establishing when to use the tool in the workflow. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or alternatives (e.g., select_tracks for multi-selection), but the prerequisite context is valuable.

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