mixer_set_send

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

Annotations already cover idempotency, non-destructiveness, and closened-world behavior. The description adds two behavioral facts not in annotations: that levels below -120 dB disable the send, and that the operation is undoable. It doesn't address whether a send is auto-created when none exists, which would complete the picture.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded, the range/off semantics parenthesized, a use-case example, and undoability tacked on last. Zero wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to fill in domain-specific behavior; the dB range, off threshold, and undoability do that. The one gap is what happens when no send currently exists on that track/bus pair — creation vs. error is unstated and matters for a mixer operation.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by adding semantics the schema lacks — level_db is capped at +6 in practice and anything at -120 or below turns the send off rather than setting a very quiet level. Track and bus parameters are fully documented in the schema, so no further description is needed.

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 verb and resource: setting a send level from a track to a return bus. The track→return-bus relationship and dB units clearly distinguish it from mixer_set_return (bus-level settings) and mixer_set_master, which no sibling covers.

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 example 'to put a part into the reverb on a return' gives a concrete use case, so the agent knows when to reach for it. It stops short of naming a contrasting alternative or stating exclusions (e.g., when to use mixer_set_return instead).

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