sound_add_to_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as whether the operation overwrites existing sounds, requires a specific event state, or has any destructive impact. The only behavioral insight is that a guid is returned for follow-up, which is insufficient for a tool that modifies a track.

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 concise, with a single clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized list of parameters. Each parameter has a short, focused explanation without extraneous information. The structure is easy to scan and understand, earning full marks for efficiency.

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?

The description covers the basic action and return value, but lacks broader context such as error conditions, prerequisites, or the exact effect on the event's timeline. It does not explain whether the sound is added at a specific point or how length interacts with existing content. The mention of follow-up calls partially compensates, but overall the context is incomplete.

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?

All six parameters are described with meaningful semantics: event_target accepts a path or guid, track_target clarifies it must be a trackGuid from event_list_tracks, sound_type enumerates valid values, start and length specify units, and name is optional. This provides comprehensive guidance beyond the bare schema, covering every parameter effectively.

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 action: 'Place an instrument on an event's track timeline.' It also indicates the return value's purpose, which helps distinguish it from other sound-related tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sound_create or sound_set_audio_file, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides indirect usage hints through parameter details (e.g., track_target should come from event_list_tracks, sound_type enumeration) and mentions follow-up calls, which implies a workflow. But it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when it should not be used, leaving some ambiguity.

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