Adjust the stereo width of a track by setting a value from 0 (mono) to 1 (stereo) to 2 (200% width) for precise audio imaging.
Set the stereo width of a track.
Args: width: Width value (0=mono, 1=stereo, 2=200% width).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the width value mapping but omits any mention of permissions, side effects, undo behavior, or what happens if track_index is invalid.
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 and front-loads the purpose. The Args section is terse but functional, though it could integrate parameter explanations more naturally.
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 two-parameter setter with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core action and width semantics but fails to explain track_index, leaving a gap that the schema cannot fill due to zero description coverage.
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. It richly explains the width parameter (0=mono, 1=stereo, 2=200% width) but gives no meaning for track_index beyond the implicit name, leaving half the 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: 'Set the stereo width of a track.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like set_track_volume and set_track_pan, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.