mixer_select

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

The description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits beyond the minimal action. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden, but it does not mention side effects, UI changes, or whether it deselects other tracks. This is insufficient for an AI agent.

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 short sentence, which is concise but not overly so for a simple tool. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it's only adequate.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'focus/select' entails or how the tool integrates with other mixer operations. More context is needed for effective use.

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 description does not mention the 'track' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent gets no help understanding what values are valid (e.g., 1-based indexing, range). The title only says 'Track', which adds no meaning.

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 (focus/select) and the resource (mixer track), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling selection tools like channel_select, pattern_select, or arrangement_select, but the resource is distinct.

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, such as mixer_track_info or mixer_arm. There is no explanation of prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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