set_routing

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

Annotations already disclose this is a non-destructive mutation with no open-world side effects. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in structured fields: names are matched fuzzily, so exact strings are not required. It omits what happens on ambiguous/no match, whether omitted parameters leave existing routing untouched, and whether null clears a route.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the key insight (fuzzy display-name matching) and immediately illustrates it. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a six-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, the one-sentence description leaves most parameters and all failure behavior undocumented, which is not enough for 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% for six parameters, so the description must compensate and does so only partially: it explains input_type and input_channel with a concrete example value ("Ext. In", "1"). The required track_index, plus track_type, output_type and output_channel, receive no explanation at all.

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 gives a verb + resource ("Set routing") and adds a distinguishing detail that matching is by fuzzy display name. However, it never says what object the routing belongs to (a track, selected via track_index) or how this differs from the sibling get_routing, so an agent must infer the scope.

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 on when to call this versus get_routing (the obvious read counterpart) or set_sidechain, and no prerequisites such as needing the track in a specific view or re-selecting a browser item. Usage is only implied by the name.

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