set_track_midi_routing

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the guarded two-phase workflow ('Plan or apply guarded changes') and the scope of effect ('Affects every clip launched on the track'). This is useful behavioral context that helps an agent understand the need for dryRun and confirmationToken.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and resource; the second clarifies scope and exclusions. Information is front-loaded and every word 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?

For a complex 9-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (plan vs. apply) and scope. It could be more explicit about the return of a plan and the requirement for a confirmation token, but the schema fills those details. Overall it gives enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by introducing the guarded workflow concept, which ties together parameters like dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken, and expectedStateVersion. Though it doesn't mention parameters by name, it explains the high-level pattern they implement.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Plan or apply guarded changes to one track's native MIDI input/output note and scale transposition.' It clearly distinguishes from device-level and rack-chain routing, and the scope ('one track's native') differentiates it from siblings like set_track_routing and set_rack_chain_note_routing.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for track-level MIDI note/scale transposition. It explicitly states what it does not do ('does not change device-level or rack-chain note routing'), which helps an agent avoid using it for those cases. It doesn't name alternative tools by name, but the scope exclusion is clear enough.

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