osc_set_main_pan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens if the operation fails. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant or irrelevant details.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations and with many similar sibling tools, it should ideally clarify differentiation from alternatives and provide more behavioral context about this write 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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'pan' fully documented in the schema including its type, range, and description. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value.

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 target resource ('pan position for the main LR mix'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'osc_set_pan' or 'osc_set_aux_pan', which appear to perform similar pan-setting operations on different targets.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'osc_set_pan' or 'osc_set_aux_pan'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar sibling tools.

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