label_add_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action and result—creating a new empty label track—but does not mention side effects like whether it requires an open project, whether it selects the new track, or whether the operation is undoable. The 'empty' qualifier adds some useful behavioral context, but the disclosure is minimal.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 (zero parameters, no schema, no output schema), the one-sentence description is mostly complete: it tells the agent exactly what will happen. It could additionally clarify that the track is created in the current project or that no labels are added, but such context is readily inferable and not a significant gap for a no-argument command.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the description does not need to document any inputs. The description 'Create a new, empty label track' adds meaningful context about the outcome, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 ('Create') and a clear resource ('new, empty label track'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like label_add (which adds labels) and track_add_mono/stereo (which add audio tracks). The word 'empty' also clarifies the initial state of the created 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as label_add, label_add_at, or track_add_mono. The description simply states what the tool does without providing selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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