track_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the parameters and the exclusive flag behavior, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., what happens if track_index is out of range, whether the action is undoable, or any impact on playback).

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: two sentences plus a bullet-like arg list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Properly front-loaded with the core action.

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 selection tool, the description covers the basic functionality and parameters. However, it is missing information about return values (likely void) and error behavior. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about state changes would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (schema has no descriptions), so the description fully compensates by clearly explaining each parameter: track_index as 0-based, selected as True=select, exclusive as Deselect others first. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles and defaults.

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 verb-resource pair "Select/deselect a track" and explains how the parameters control behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like selection_select_all_tracks or selection_deselect_all_tracks, which also manipulate track selection.

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 implies use for selecting or deselecting an individual track by index, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, such as using selection_get_selected_tracks for reading state or selection_select_all_tracks for bulk actions.

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