set_track_width

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful width value semantics (0=mono, 1=stereo, 2=200%) but does not disclose behavior like clamping, automation interplay, or what happens if an out-of-range value is provided.

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 a single clear purpose statement followed immediately by the one parameter that needs semantic explanation. There is no filler or redundant content.

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, the description is nearly complete: the main parameter's scale and meaning are given, and the other parameter is self-explanatory from its name. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit track_index clarification.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the width parameter well, but track_index is completely undocumented in text; its meaning is only inferable from the parameter name and tool context.

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." This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_track_pan and set_track_volume, so an agent can identify its purpose without needing to inspect the schema.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, such as when adjusting panning or volume instead.

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