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 states the core action but does not mention side effects, whether the new track becomes selected, or whether it is added at the end of the track list. 'Add' implies non-destructive, but the description stops short of explaining any observable outcomes beyond the bare 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?

A single sentence with no extraneous words. The action, object, and target are all front-loaded and clearly stated. The description earns its place and nothing more is needed.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows exactly what action will occur. It does not mention return values or post-conditions, but for a simple 'add track' operation these are largely self-evident. A minor omission is the lack of detail about where the track is added (e.g., end of session), but this does not significantly hinder correct invocation.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage (trivially, since there are no properties), the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description is missing or misleading on this front.

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'), a specific resource ('mono audio track'), and a clear target ('to the project'). It also differentiates from the sibling `track_add_stereo` by explicitly naming the mono variant, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a mono track is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference `track_add_stereo` as the alternative. The distinction is left to inference from the tool name and sibling list, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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