set_record_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does explain the domain meaning of the input index, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about side effects, whether the change is reversible, permission/track-existence requirements, or error behavior for invalid indices.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the parameter encoding. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 2-required-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tricky input encoding well but omits any behavioral or prerequisite context and leaves track_index undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly for `input` (0..N-1 mono, 1024+ch stereo pair, -1 for MIDI all-channels), adding real meaning beyond the bare integer schema. However, `track_index` is left completely undescribed, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Set the record input for a track.' This is unambiguous relative to the obvious sibling set_track_record_arm, which arms recording rather than choosing the source. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. track must exist, whether it should be record-armed), and no routing to alternatives. Usage is only implied by the description of the input value encoding.

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