set_track_routing

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

The description mentions 'guarded' but fails to disclose the crucial two-phase workflow (dry run producing planHash and confirmationToken, then apply requiring those). It does not state that expectedStateVersion must be captured before planning, nor that apply is irreversible or requires a fresh token. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description carries the burden and does not meet it.

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 front-loads the primary action. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized, though it could trade a little brevity for crucial workflow details without becoming verbose.

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?

With 10 parameters and a guarded two-phase operation, the description is far too terse. It omits the mandatory dry-run-first pattern, the role of expectedStateVersion as an optimistic concurrency check, and the requirement for a valid confirmationToken on apply. No output schema exists to compensate, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain the relationship between dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken, and expectedStateVersion. It provides no extra context to help an agent understand the guarded flow.

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 apply'), the resource ('guarded track routing and monitoring changes'), and the mechanism ('by exact choice ID'). This is specific and distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_track_routing or other routing setters, as it emphasizes the guarded, two-phase nature.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_track_midi_routing, route_tracks_to_bus, or get_track_routing. There are no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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