set_track_send

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains parameter value range (0.0 to 1.0) and send index mapping, but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., track must exist and have sends), or return behavior. Adequate for a simple setter.

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 focused sentences plus a parameter list, no redundant text. Information is front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence serves a clear function.

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?

Covers core functionality and parameter details, but lacks mention of error handling, prerequisites, or return format. For a simple parameter-setting tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 0% (only titles), but description adds meaning: track_index and send_index are clarified with index mapping (Send A, Send B), and value range is specified (0.0 to 1.0). This goes beyond the schema's minimal info.

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 'Set a send amount on a track' with specific verb and resource, and adds context 'for routing to return tracks', distinguishing it from siblings like set_track_volume or set_track_pan.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use set_track_send instead of set_track_volume). The description provides no exclusions or context for selection.

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