audio_route_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions 'native mutation is currently supported only through pactl on Linux' which hints at underlying mechanism, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or what the plan actually does. The term 'hash-bound' is undefined, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 brief, two sentences, with no fluff. The primary purpose is stated first. However, its terseness might be conflated with lack of important detail, but for conciseness and front-loading, it scores well.

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 planning tool leading to execution, with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It gives no indication of what the plan contains, how it relates to audio_route_execute, or how to use it correctly. The pactl mention hints at Linux dependency but no further context.

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?

All four parameters (sink, source, sinkMuted, sourceMuted) are undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), and the description provides zero information about their meaning or usage. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Create a hash-bound host audio routing plan') which distinguishes it from sibling execute tools like audio_route_execute. However, 'hash-bound' is ambiguous and not explained, leaving some purpose fuzziness.

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 on when to use this plan tool versus audio_route_execute or other plan/execute pairs. The note about pactl on Linux is a platform constraint, not usage direction, and does not indicate when this tool is the right choice.

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