item_insert_media

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and lists arguments, but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the file must exist, whether existing items are replaced, snapping behavior, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus a minimal argument list. Every element is necessary and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error handling (e.g., invalid path, non-existent track), or whether the operation is destructive. The three parameters are barely explained, missing details like validation.

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 description provides brief explanations for each parameter ('Target track index', 'Absolute file path', 'Insert position in seconds') which adds meaning beyond the schema names. However, it does not specify units for track_index (0-based vs 1-based) or that position defaults to 0, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 ('Insert audio/MIDI file into track') and the resource ('track'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like item_create_midi (which creates MIDI items from scratch) and load_loops (which loads loops into a library) by specifying file insertion.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like item_create_midi or load_loops. There are no prerequisites, restrictions, or suggestions about when not to use it.

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