mixer_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core action (enable/disable) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether disabling a route affects audio immediately, whether it's reversible, or if any permissions are needed). For a simple toggle, it is minimally adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with action and resource. No redundant information. Perfectly concise.

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 (3 params, no output schema) and sibling tools like mixer_mute and mixer_set_send_level, the description covers the basic operation. However, it could be improved by mentioning that it toggles a send (aux route) as opposed to the main mixer route, and by clarifying parameter roles. Overall, it is minimally complete but lacks helpful context.

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 0%. The description only implies that src_track and dst_track are the two tracks, but does not clarify their roles (e.g., from which to which), nor does it explain the enabled parameter or its default value. It adds marginal meaning beyond the parameter names but insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb (enable/disable), resource (mixer route/send), and scope (between two tracks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mixer_mute, mixer_set_send_level, and mixer_link_to_channel.

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 tool vs alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites (e.g., tracks must exist, route must be available) or when not to use. The description is purely functional without contextual decision support.

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