event_add_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals side effects (creating a track and mixer group), describes the return of two distinct GUIDs, and warns about the visual/behavioral separation. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, which are minor gaps here.

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, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: the opening line sums purpose, the second explains return values, and the Args block clarifies parameters without fluff.

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 creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fully adequate: it covers purpose, usage, return values, and param semantics. The missing output schema is compensated by the detailed return-value explanation.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the target as an event:// path or {guid} and defines the optional name as a mixer-group name with a default, adding some value beyond raw schema names. It covers 100% of parameters, but the syntax details are thin.

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 clearly states the tool adds a group (audio) track to an event's timeline, using specific action verbs and resource nouns. It exceeds the name by explaining the dual GUID return, which fully distinguishes it from siblings like event_add_marker_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?

Explicitly states when to use trackGuid versus mixerGroupGuid, referencing specific sibling tools (sound_add_to_track, automation_add_curve, mixer_group_volume, mixer_effect_add) and noting the constraint that a track has no addAutomator(). It also explains the target format, providing clear context, alternatives, and exclusions.

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