route_tracks_to_bus

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but say nothing about the planning/confirmation mechanism. The description's 'Plan or route' hints at two modes but does not disclose the exact contract: that dryRun is required to produce a plan, that a confirmationToken is short-lived and single-use, and that expectedStateVersion must be captured immediately before planning. With no output schema, these behavioral requirements are essential but entirely absent from the description.

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, compact sentence that leads with the primary verb 'Plan or route' and specifies the resource and constraint. No filler or redundancy. Efficiency is high.

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 mutation tool with a non-trivial plan-then-execute flow, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the dryRun/confirmationToken protocol, the need for expectedStateVersion, or what a successful execution returns. The output schema is absent, so the description must bridge that gap but fails to. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool correctly without reading the schema and inferring the workflow, which is a significant shortfall.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds marginal value by noting 'existing tracks' and 'exact existing group bus', reinforcing that the tracks must already exist. However, it does not clarify that trackIds and busTrackId are stable IDs from list_tracks, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description neither hurts nor significantly elevates parameter understanding.

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: 'Plan or route existing tracks to one exact existing group bus' with a specific resource (group bus) and a qualifier ('using Live's available routing choices'). It distinguishes from generic routing tools by specifying 'exact existing group bus', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'route' is specific, and the two-phase plan/execute intent is implied.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_routing or set_bulk_track_mixer. The description does not mention the prerequisite of having a list of tracks from list_tracks, nor the two-step dry-run-then-confirm pattern that the schema's dryRun and confirmationToken parameters imply. An agent could incorrectly attempt to execute routing without first obtaining a plan and confirmation token.

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