set_strip_routing

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the basic toggle action and route values, but omits side effects, whether it replaces or adds to existing routes, permission requirements, or any other behavioral traits. The phrase 'kind-dependent' adds ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be more informative without losing conciseness; some sentences (like the route list) are necessary but the whole description feels too brief for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 tool with 4 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover all parameters, lacks return value information, and does not explain how routing interacts with other mixing operations. Sibling tools suggest this is part of a larger audio mixing context, but the description fails to provide enough context for correct usage.

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%, requiring the description to explain all parameters. The description only mentions the 'route' parameter with its enum values, but does not explain 'strip', 'dry_run', or 'enabled'. These parameters remain underdocumented, making it harder for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the action 'send or stop sending a strip to an output' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the route values (A1|A2|A3|B1|B2) but does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like set_strip_gain or mute_strip, which have different purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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