track_add_stereo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates the mutative outcome (a new stereo track is created), but does not disclose whether the new track becomes selected, how it is positioned, or whether it is undoable. This is adequate but not rich for a creation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter schema, simple behavior, and low complexity, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and the resource involved, though it could mention common side effects like selection changes for full completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so according to the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the type of track being created ('stereo'), leaving no ambiguity about what is added.

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 states a specific action ('Add'), a specific resource ('new stereo audio track'), and the destination ('to the project'). It is clear and the word 'stereo' differentiates it from the sibling track_add_mono, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as track_add_mono or when a stereo track is preferred. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which an agent should choose it.

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