arm_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether arming affects other tracks, requires specific session states, has side effects, or what the output indicates. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear parameter explanations in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 2 params) and no annotations, the description is minimally complete but lacks behavioral context. The presence of an output schema helps, but more detail on effects and usage 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?

The description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage: it explains that track_number is 1-based and armed controls arming/disarming. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could note default values or constraints.

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 specific action ('Arm or disarm') and resource ('a track for recording'), distinguishing it from siblings like mute_track, solo_track, or record. It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 record, mute_track, or solo_track. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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