set_return_track_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation (set) but does not elaborate on side effects, prerequisites (e.g., the return track must exist), error behavior for invalid indices, or whether the operation is undoable. This is comparable to the update_drive example, where low transparency is noted for a similarly simple mutation without annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a neatly formatted Args block. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 setter with three parameters, the description is mostly complete given that an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained). However, it lacks context about boundaries (e.g., valid ranges for indices), dependencies (e.g., required return tracks), and potential side effects. These gaps are typical for mutation tools without annotations, making this a minimum viable yet not fully comprehensive description.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the tool description compensates by explaining all three parameters: return_index is zero-based, send_index is zero-based, and value is a float between 0.0 and 1.0. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare field titles in the schema, nearly fully compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Set a send value on a return track.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_send, which presumably operates on regular tracks. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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. There is no mention of set_track_send for non-return tracks or any conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but explicit directions are absent.

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