channel_route_to_mixer

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

No annotations are provided (readOnly, destructive, etc.), so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('route') without mentioning side effects (e.g., does it overwrite existing routing? Is it reversible? Does it require a specific audio driver?). It also fails to state whether the operation is instantaneous or has latency implications. This is a severe omission for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, which is highly concise. It front-loads the key action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter clarification without losing conciseness. The extreme brevity borders on under-specification, but overall the structure is 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 simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'mixer_route' or 'link_to_channel', nor does it explain the relationship between channels and mixer insert tracks. The agent lacks sufficient context to know when routing a channel to a mixer insert is appropriate versus other routing operations. The description fails to achieve completeness even for a simple tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter names 'index' and 'mixer_track' are the only clues. The description uses the same words ('channel' and 'mixer insert track') but does not clarify indexing (0-based or 1-based), ranges, valid values, or whether 'mixer_track' refers to the track index or a specific insert slot. The description adds only marginal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Route a channel to a given mixer insert track' uses a specific verb ('route') and identifies the primary resource (channel) and destination (mixer insert track). It clearly states the tool's action and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'mixer_route', which also involves routing, albeit between mixer tracks. The lack of sibling differentiation prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with 'mixer_route' (which routes between mixer tracks) or 'channel_set_volume' (which adjusts volume). It offers no use-case scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and parameters alone.

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