track_freeze

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

The description explains the behavioral effect: 'Freezing bypasses the live FX chain and plays back rendered audio'. It mentions the action used (REAPER action 41223) and the consequence. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden and does so well.

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 brief yet comprehensive: 4 sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what to expect, and how to undo. No gaps are apparent.

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 only parameter track_index is described as '0-based track index', which adds meaningful clarification beyond the schema (type integer, title). Given 0% schema coverage, the description compensates adequately, though it could be slightly more detailed.

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's purpose: 'Freeze a track to stereo audio (pre-fader render of FX + VSTi)'. It uses specific verb and resource, distinguishes from sibling tool track_unfreeze by mentioning the inverse operation, and references the REAPER action.

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: 'use when a track's VSTi or FX chain is CPU-heavy and you're done editing that part'. It also provides a clear alternative by referencing track_unfreeze for restoring the original state.

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