Ajustar paneo de pista

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it verifies the adjustment ('lo verifica') and explicitly notes it does not overwrite active automation ('no sobrescribe automatización activa'). This is useful context not present in the annotations, which only state idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. Every phrase adds meaningful information.

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 simple parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify what happens when active automation is present (e.g., whether the operation fails or silently does nothing), leaving a minor but noteworthy gap.

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%, and the description only mentions the pan range, which is already encoded in the schema's minimum/maximum. It does not explain project_ref or track_guid, so it fails 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 'Ajusta' (adjusts) and the resource 'paneo de pista' (track pan), specifying the range -1..1. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_volume and set_track_mute by naming the exact property being adjusted.

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 when to use this tool (to set track pan) and provides a caveat about active automation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The automation note gives some context but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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