set_track

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: routing names are matched case-insensitively, channels accept values like '1/2' or 'Post FX', and routing type plus channel can be set in one call. It does not clarify partial-update semantics when optional parameters are omitted.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, efficiently lists the affected properties, then adds focused routing guidance and a concrete example. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given 12 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and annotations that cover the safety profile, the description is largely complete for correct invocation. It thoroughly covers routing and most properties, but falls short of fully documenting color formatting, the track identifier, and partial-update behavior when optional arguments are omitted.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps most of the 12 parameters to their meanings, provides allowed monitoring values, explains routing sources and channel formats, and gives an example call. Remaining gaps include the accepted format for 'color' and deeper detail on the required 'track' parameter beyond the example.

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 ('Change') and resource ('a track'), then enumerates the modifiable properties including routing. It clearly implies modification of an existing track rather than creation or deletion, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_track, delete_track, or get_track.

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 a useful prerequisite for routing values ('takes display names from get_routing_options') and an example call, which gives clear context for that sub-case. However, it does not state when to use set_track versus sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving overall usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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