route_mixer

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key state-changing case: passing None deletes the route, and level is bounded 0..1. It does not say whether the call is idempotent, what happens to an existing route's level when re-sent, what is returned, or what errors occur for invalid track ids.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and then the parameters, with zero boilerplate. It is slightly compressed to the point of terseness (semantic clauses separated by semicolons), but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Three parameters, no output schema, no annotations: the description covers the happy path and the removal case, which is the minimum viable. Missing are id semantics (index vs channel id), default behavior when level is omitted, and any indication of return value or failure mode for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate, and it names all three parameters with meaning: from/to are track ids, level is a 0..1 value with a special None case that overrides the schema's plain anyOf[number, null]. It stops short of clarifying whether ids are mixer-track indices or channel ids, and omits the 0.8 default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: send mixer track `from_track` to `to_track` at a level — an agent immediately knows this creates/updates a routing connection. It is distinguishable from sibling set_mixer_track by being about inter-track routing rather than track settings, though it never explicitly says so.

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 clause 'level None removes the route' gives one concrete usage condition (how to undo/remove), which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus set_mixer_track / add_mixer_track / set_channel, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether both tracks must already exist).

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