set_send_dest_channels

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

Besides the annotation destructiveHint=false, the description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether this modifies an existing send, whether it can break current routing, or what happens if send_index is invalid. The sidechain context and channel mapping are useful but are more parameter semantics than behavioral transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-line purpose followed by an Args block. There is minor redundancy where the sidechain compression example repeats the channel mapping already stated for dest_chan.

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?

A required parameter (send_index) is entirely undocumented, and there is no guidance on how to discover or validate it. For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it reliably without additional context.

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?

The description adds meaningful detail for track_index (0-based) and dest_chan (channel pair mapping and sidechain example). However, it completely omits the required send_index parameter, leaving a significant gap in a low-coverage schema situation.

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's purpose: setting the destination channels for a send, specifically in the context of sidechain routing. It distinguishes itself from the sibling set_send_source_channels by focusing on destination rather than source channels, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings like setup_sidechain_send, setup_sidechain_compression, or create_send. It implies sidechain routing usage but never states prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool selection criteria.

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