Fl Mixer Send

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the level range (0-1) and the ability to disable a route, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether existing routes are replaced, what happens on invalid tracks, or if actions are reversible). It also fails to indicate whether listing is read-only versus mutating actions. The description covers basic behavior but omits critical operational details.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then enumerates variants concisely. There is no filler or redundant wording; every clause adds value.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented. However, the description does not address edge cases like existing routes, multiple sends, error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., valid track indices). Given the complexity and lack of annotations, it is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for a mutation tool with routing semantics.

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 level is 0-1, that omitting dest_track lists routes, and that disabling a route corresponds to setting enabled=false. However, it does not explicitly describe source_track (though implied) or clarify the interaction between dest_track and enabled. It partially bridges the gap but leaves some parameters under-explained.

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 action ('Route a track into another'), identifies the resource (track into a send/bus), and lists three distinct operations: routing, disabling, and listing routes. It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes itself from mixer track property tools like fl_mixer_track_set by focusing on routing logic.

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 usage scenarios (routing a track to a bus, disabling a route, listing routes) but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It mentions 'omit dest_track' as a usage hint for listing, but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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