Set audio tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the core behavior (track enablement via dict mapping) and gives an example, but does not mention side effects, whether tracks not listed are left unchanged, error handling for invalid track numbers, or any permissions needed. This is adequate but not rich.

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 plus a short example. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 setter with two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main use case and parameter format. Minor gaps: it could clarify whether the dict should include all tracks or only those being changed, but overall it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 explains that the 'tracks' parameter is a dict mapping track numbers (1-6) to booleans, with a concrete example. It does not explicitly describe 'source_name', but that is self-evident. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function: enable or disable audio tracks 1-6 for a source. It uses specific verbs 'Enable or disable' and identifies the resource as 'audio tracks', distinguishing it from other audio tools like mute_source or set_volume.

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 implies clear usage context: use this tool when you need to enable/disable individual audio tracks by passing a dict of track numbers to booleans. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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