set_send_dest_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and largely does not meet it. It says nothing about whether this requires an existing send (create_send), what happens to previously assigned destination channels, whether the change is undoable, or what errors occur on an invalid channel pair or send index.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence and the Args block is tight, with the sidechain example earning its place. The formatting is slightly redundant in restating parameter names, but there is no filler.

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 three-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the sidechain use case and the dest_chan encoding but omits send_index semantics, preconditions (send must exist), and failure/undo behavior. Adequate for the primary path, incomplete for edge cases.

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, and it does well for two of three required parameters: track_index is clarified as 0-based source track and dest_chan gets a full mapping (0=1-2 main, 2=3-4 sidechain, 4=5-6). However, the required send_index is never explained in either the schema or the description, leaving a genuine gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Set the destination channels for a send') and a concrete domain context ('used for sidechain routing'), so the agent knows exactly what is mutated. It never names the closely related siblings set_send_source_channels or setup_sidechain_send, so sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical 'used for sidechain routing' plus 'For sidechain compression, use 2' tells the agent one scenario where this applies, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to the higher-level alternatives (setup_sidechain_send, setup_sidechain_compression, configure_reacomp_sidechain) that also appear in the sibling list.

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