set_track_arm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (set arm to true/false) but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., track type), or what happens if the track cannot be armed. It is minimally transparent for a simple setter.

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 three lines, front-loaded with the main verb and then args, with no filler. Every word serves a purpose.

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 a boolean parameter, the description covers the purpose and both parameters completely. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. No major gaps.

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 description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage by defining track_index as zero-based and arm as true-to-arm/false-to-disarm, adding semantic meaning beyond mere titles and types.

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 function: setting the record arm state of a track, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from global record operations like set_record_mode and track-specific setters like set_track_solo.

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 implies usage for arming/disarming a track, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_session_record or trigger_record, nor any exclusions. Could be more explicit about applying to individual tracks.

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