set_track_targeted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about mutation side effects: whether toggling off affects pending paste operations, whether video and audio targeting are independent, or what happens if trackIndex is out of range. Only the bare purpose is given.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Economy is good, though the parenthetical could be expanded with one more clause of behavioral detail at no real cost.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and one of three parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what state change to expect, what the boolean toggles, or what errors occur on invalid track indices.

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 67%: trackType and trackIndex are documented in the schema, but 'targeted' (the actual boolean toggle, and the crux of the tool) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema at all.

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+resource ('Set track targeting') and adds a parenthetical explaining what targeting affects (paste/match-frame/subsequence), which helps an agent understand the domain concept. It does not contrast with the adjacent track tools (set_track_muted, set_track_locked), but the verb/resource pair is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus sibling track tools, no prerequisites (e.g., an active sequence must exist), and no statement about whether targeting is additive or exclusive per track type. The parenthetical describes an effect, not a selection condition.

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