reaper_set_track_record_input

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the input parameter has a special MIDI encoding formula, which provides additional context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe other behaviors like what happens if the track index is invalid.

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 core action without any extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 required params, no output schema) and annotations providing safety context, the description is fairly complete. It covers the key encoding detail but could mention that track_index must correspond to an existing track and that the function has no return value.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, but the description adds crucial meaning to the 'input' parameter by explaining how to encode MIDI input (4096 + channel*32 + device). This goes beyond the schema's generic description and is actionable for the agent.

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 sets a track's record input, specifying it can be audio channel or encoded MIDI. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like reaper_set_track_record_arm which arms the track.

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 for configuring track input routing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for arming, volume, pan). There is no mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use.

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