Adjusts the pan position of a specified audio track from -100 (full left) to 100 (full right), with 0 centered.
Set the pan position of an audio track
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pan | Yes | Pan position (-100 = full left, 0 = center, 100 = full right) | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Audio track index |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the pan change is undoable, whether it requires an active sequence, whether it affects existing automation, or whether the operation fails for invalid track indices.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the extreme brevity leaves out important operational context, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.
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?
The tool has only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the schema carries most of the load. But for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should mention prerequisites such as track validity and active sequence context, or expected failure behavior.
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%, and the parameter descriptions already explain the pan range (-100 left, 0 center, 100 right) and track index. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Clear specific verb ('Set') and resource ('pan position of an audio track'), which is distinguishable from the sibling set_track_volume and solo_track by resource. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives like set_track_volume or solo_track, and no prerequisites such as needing an active sequence or a valid track index. The agent must infer all usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.