create_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only discloses the return shape. It does not say whether the call fails when a send already exists, whether indices must be valid track positions, or what side effects occur on the routing matrix.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the action is stated first, then parameters and return value in labeled sections. The Args/Returns framing is slightly boilerplate but wastes nothing.

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 two-parameter state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, parameters, and return value, but omits error conditions and interaction with the existing routing/send list. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must supply meaning, and it does: it clarifies that src_track is the source and dest_track the destination and that both are 0-based indices. That is meaningful beyond the bare integer properties, though it omits bounds/validity behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a send from one track to another'), which is clear and separable from most siblings like delete_send and set_send_volume. It does not, however, contrast itself with related tools such as setup_sidechain_send, which also creates sends implicitly.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it relates to setup_sidechain_send or get_track_num_sends. The agent must infer that this is the primitive send-creation call.

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