set_return_mixer

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

Annotations only state that the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing a two-phase 'plan or apply' mode and a 'guarded' execution model. It doesn't spell out the confirmation-token/state-version mechanics, but those are visible in the schema.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the guarded plan/apply nuance is packed efficiently.

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 9-parameter guarded two-phase tool, the description plus a fully self-documenting schema covers the essential workflow: plan via dryRun, then apply with planHash, confirmationToken, and expectedStateVersion. The lack of an output schema and an explicit statement of apply-time failure behavior leaves a small gap, so it is not a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists four of the nine parameters (volume, pan, mute, solo) but adds no units, ranges, or workflow semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No additional parameter insight is offered.

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 the exact operation ('Plan or apply'), the specific resource ('return-bus'), and the target mixer parameters ('volume, pan, mute, or solo'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_mixer or set_master_mixer. 'Guarded' also signals the distinct confirmation/versioning workflow.

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 clearly scopes usage to return-bus mixer changes and indicates a plan-then-apply workflow, which is strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.