add_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not say whether the sequence is modified in place, whether changes are undoable, what the defaults are when no counts are passed, or whether insertion shifts existing clips. Only the "active sequence" targeting is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and target are stated immediately. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description leaves key questions open: default track counts, placement semantics of top/bottom, and the effect on existing tracks. What is present is accurate but insufficient.

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 only 33% (only audioType has "Default stereo"), so the description needed to compensate and does not. It never explains that videoTracks and audioTracks are counts of tracks to create, nor what the default behavior is with zero required parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add video and/or audio tracks") scoped to "the active sequence", which distinguishes it from remove_track, remove_empty_tracks and rename_track. The "top/bottom" phrasing is ambiguous since no parameter controls placement, but the core action is unmistakable.

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 phrase "the active sequence" implies the prerequisite that a sequence must already be active, which is useful context. However, it never states when to use this versus create_sequence, create_sequence_from_clips or get_track_info, nor does it address what happens when videoTracks/audioTracks are omitted (0 required params).

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