set_send_source_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this mutates project state, what permissions are required, whether the change is reversible, or what happens to existing send routing, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a setter tool.

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 short, front-loaded, and structured with an Args section. It avoids unnecessary wording, though the Args list is incomplete because send_index is missing, which slightly weakens the structure.

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 setter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits send_index entirely and provides no usage context, side-effect information, or return behavior.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It gives useful detail for track_index (0-based) and src_chan (-1=none, 0=stereo 1-2, 1024+n=mono from channel n), but it completely omits send_index, leaving one of three required parameters undocumented.

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 verb and resource: it sets the source channels for a send. This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as set_send_dest_channels or setup_sidechain_send, so sibling differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_send_dest_channels, create_send, or setup_sidechain_send. The description only defines the operation, not its context or prerequisites.

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