set_track_output_routing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'Set the output routing' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, permissions, or impact on playback. This is a mutation tool, and the lack of such context is a significant gap.

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, with a one-line purpose, a helpful pointer to get_track_routing, and a clean Args section. Every sentence provides value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and how to discover valid names. It does not explicitly address alternatives, but the overall guidance is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: track_index is 'Zero-based index of the track,' routing_type_name is 'Display name of the desired output routing type,' and routing_channel_name is 'Display name of the desired output routing channel (optional).' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare 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 states 'Set the output routing for a track,' which is a specific verb and resource. The word 'output' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'set_track_input_routing,' and referencing 'get_track_routing' for names further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides clear context by instructing the user to use 'get_track_routing' to see available routing type names, which guides correct usage. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool, but the name itself differentiates it from input routing.

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