set_track_master_send

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

Beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the routing effect: enabling sends audio to the parent folder (or master), and disabling makes the track output only via sends. This is useful behavioral context for a mutation tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 text is compact and front-loaded with the core action, and the use-case sentence earns its place. However, the Args block is incomplete: it documents only 'enabled' while both 'track_index' and 'enabled' are required. This structural gap undercuts an otherwise clean layout.

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 simple boolean setter with no output schema, the main behavioral and when-to-use context is present. But the missing track_index semantics, plus no mention of the corresponding getter sibling for verifying state or error behavior, leaves the definition incomplete for fully reliable invocation.

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 needed to explain both required parameters. It clearly explains 'enabled' ('True to enable, False to disable'), but omits 'track_index' entirely from the Args section and gives no indexing conventions. One of the two required parameters remains semantically 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?

States a specific operation ('Enable or disable') and resource ('master/parent send on a track'), so an agent knows exactly what action this performs. It also differentiates from general send tools by targeting the master/parent send specifically.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional: disable when the track should only output through its sends, e.g., routed exclusively to a bus. It also explains the enabled behavior (routes to parent folder or master), giving clear context. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops just short of full when/when-not routing.

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