set_track_output_routing

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

No annotations provided, but the description is minimal and does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or operational context (e.g., whether track must be stopped, whether changes are immediate). The description repeats the function name's intent without adding behavioral details.

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 short and to the point, with a clear header and bulleted parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter list could be integrated without bullet points for even better conciseness.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on return values, validation, prerequisites (e.g., track existence), and potential errors. The sibling context shows many similar setter tools, but this tool's description does not fully equip 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning by listing parameters and noting that routing_type options can be seen via get_available_outputs, and that routing_channel is optional. However, it does not explain track_index semantics or provide comprehensive guidance on parameter values.

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?

Clearly states it sets the output routing of a track, distinguishing it from getter tools like get_track_output_routing and other setter tools like set_track_input_routing. The verb 'set' and object 'output routing' are specific.

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?

Provides a hint to use get_available_outputs to see options, but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like set_track_input_routing or when not to use it. No explicit context of prerequisites beyond the hint.

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