set_send_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the linear 0.0-1.0 range and that send_index matches the return track's index, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the operation is reversible, what happens if a send does not exist, or if it overrides an existing level.

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 one sentence plus a bullet list. It is front-loaded with purpose and efficiently organizes parameter details. Some parameter descriptions are terse but sufficient.

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 simple setter nature, the description covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it vs sibling volume/pan setters, error behavior, and whether sends are created automatically. No output schema exists, so return value behavior is omitted.

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 defines all 4 parameters, including semantics not in the schema (which has only titles). For example, it explains linear range, index matching, and user_prompt's telemetry purpose. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Description states 'Set a track's send level to a return track,' which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling setters like set_track_volume and set_track_pan by the parameter being controlled (send level).

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the name and purpose, but there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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