select_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the basic selection operation and parameter meaning, but does not disclose whether the selection replaces the existing selection, whether tracks must already exist, or what happens on invalid indices. Silent on side effects beyond the bare selection action.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean Args block. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no redundant or marketing language.

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 simple two-parameter selection tool, the description is moderately adequate but not fully complete. It does not explain selection replacement behavior, bounds, invalid track handling, or whether the count selection is contiguous, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill these 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%, so the description must supply semantics for both parameters. It does: 'track' is clearly the starting index with 0-based convention, and 'count' is identified as the number of tracks to select. This is meaningful beyond the bare schema titles 'Track' and 'Count'.

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 ('Select'), names the resource ('tracks'), and provides the indexing mechanism ('by index'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_all, select_none, select_region, and select_clip, which operate on different scopes or selection modes.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of selecting all tracks, selecting clips, or using region-based selection, so the agent receives no explicit decision support for choosing among the many sibling selection tools.

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