set_track_input_routing

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 only says 'Set' without explaining side effects, error behavior, or prerequisites beyond the need for valid routing names. It does not mention what happens on invalid input or any operational implications.

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 sentences plus a cleanly formatted Args list. No filler or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool, the description covers the necessary usage context: what it does, how to find valid values, and the parameters. It doesn't mention error handling, but given the output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, this is a minor gap. It could briefly note that invalid routing names may cause an error, but overall it is adequate.

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 0% (no descriptions in the schema properties), so the description's per-argument explanations add significant value. It clarifies that the index is zero-based, names are display names, and the channel is optional, which is exactly the kind of semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('input routing for a track'), using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from the related tool 'set_track_output_routing' and complements 'get_track_routing'.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on how to discover valid routing names by referencing 'get_track_routing'. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but for a setter, the context is clear and it points to the relevant sibling tool.

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