track

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It valuably discloses that bus disables the source tracks' direct send to the master/parent, but it does not warn that delete is destructive, describe return behavior, or state permissions/constraints.

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 three compact sentences, front-loads the purpose and action list, then adds only the non-obvious update and bus details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a complex multi-action tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description adequately covers update and the tricky bus action, but leaves list, add, delete, and index semantics under-specified.

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. It adds meaningful semantics for update fields, pan's -1..1 range, and bus's source_indices routing, but leaves 'index' unexplained and does not clarify parameter usage for add, delete, or list.

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 states a clear resource ('Track operations') and enumerates the five supported actions, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as item, send, or fx, which is the main remaining gap.

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 lists actions but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send or fx, and no when-not conditions. The bus explanation is behavioral detail, not usage guidance.

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