set_bulk_track_mixer

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable details: 'Per-track values clamp to each observed native range' and 'sends are unchanged,' which inform the user about edge cases. 'Guarded' and 'confirmed step' convey that changes require validation. It does not explain the return format or error handling, but given the complexity, this is a strong disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose (plan/apply bulk mixer changes) and immediately adds critical qualifiers ('guarded', 'confirmed step', 'clamp', 'sends unchanged'). There is no redundancy or filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

Given 9 parameters, a two-step plan/apply flow, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's role and the broad flow. It mentions planning vs. applying and the confirmed step, which is critical. The schema fills in parameter details. The only gap is an explicit explanation of what the plan returns (e.g., a planHash and confirmationToken), but the schema covers that, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 each parameter is well-documented in the schema (e.g., dryRun explains the plan vs. apply behavior, solo warns about muting everything else). The description adds a small amount beyond the schema, such as the clamping behavior and that sends are unchanged, but these are peripheral. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the tool description doesn't need to repeat parameter details.

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 a specific verb (plan or apply), resource (multiple existing ordinary tracks), and the scope of changes (volume, pan, mute, solo). The phrase 'multiple existing ordinary tracks' distinguishes it from single-track tools like set_track_mixer, and 'guarded... in one confirmed step' signals a two-phase plan/apply flow. This is a precise purpose statement.

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 implies the tool is for bulk changes to multiple ordinary tracks, which differentiates it from set_track_mixer (single track), set_master_mixer, and set_return_mixer. The 'guarded' and 'confirmed step' phrasing hints at when to use the dry-run/confirm flow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide clear exclusion conditions (e.g., 'for a single track, use set_track_mixer'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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