channel_set_pan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Set channel pan' which implies a write operation but does not disclose any side effects, such as whether it overwrites automation or requires the channel to be selected.

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 with no unnecessary words. While concise, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly linking parameters to their roles.

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 simple two-parameter setter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'channel' means in this system, what the return value is, and whether any state must be prepared before calling this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning for the 'pan' parameter by including the range, but provides no explanation for the 'index' parameter, leaving it ambiguous what 'channel' index refers to (mixer track? instrument channel?).

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 action (Set) and object (channel pan) and specifies the valid range (-1.0..1.0). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like channel_set_volume or channel_set_pitch.

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 (e.g., automation_record_channel_pan). There is no mention of prerequisites, expected context, or when not to use it.

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