set_master_mixer

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the word 'guarded' but does not explain what the guard entails (e.g., requiring a confirmation token, state version checks, or rollback behavior). Without this elaboration, the guard mechanism remains opaque, and the description fails to disclose the need for a prior plan and confirmation token.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no redundant phrases or filler. However, it may be too terse for a tool of this complexity, sacrificing crucial operational details for brevity. Given the need for more content, this is not a case of efficient conciseness but rather under-specification.

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 9 parameters, a two-phase plan/apply mechanism, and no output schema. The description fails to explain the workflow (dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken), the requirement to fetch stateVersion from get_set_mixer, or the meaning of 'guarded.' An agent cannot fully understand how to safely invoke this tool from the description alone; it would need to parse the schema deeply and possibly infer the sequence.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so each parameter is already explained. The tool description adds only a general reference to 'master mixer and output-channel changes,' which maps loosely to the parameters but does not provide any extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify the relationship between dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken, which the schema describes individually.

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 names a specific resource ('master mixer and available hardware output-channel changes') and the two possible actions ('Plan or apply'). It is clear what the tool operates on, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling mixer tools like set_track_mixer or set_bulk_track_mixer beyond the 'master mixer' scope. It also omits that this tool is specifically for hardware output channels, which is partially implied by 'available hardware output-channel changes'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and critically omits the two-step dry-run/apply workflow that the schema implies. It does not mention that a dry run must be performed first to obtain a planHash and confirmationToken, nor that expectedStateVersion must be captured from get_set_mixer. This leaves the agent to infer the process from parameter names alone.

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