set_track_arm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the failure behavior on non-armable tracks, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether arming one track disarms others, possible side effects, or permission requirements. The description adds some transparency but leaves notable gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that is both concise and informative. It states the action, the purpose, and a key exception without wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (two clear parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a major edge case. However, it omits potential common behaviors like automatic disarming of other tracks, which could be relevant in a DAW context. Overall, it is mostly complete for a simple setter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'arm or un-arm' directly implies the boolean `arm` parameter's meaning, and `track_index` is self-explanatory. The description adds some semantic context beyond the schema, but it does not explicitly define each parameter's format or edge cases.

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 tool's action: 'Arm or un-arm a track for recording.' The verb is specific, the resource is identified, and it distinguishes from sibling track tools like mute, solo, and volume. It also notes a key limitation (fails on group tracks), further clarifying its scope.

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: this is for enabling/disabling recording on a track. It also includes an exclusion by noting it fails on tracks that cannot be armed, such as group tracks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when to use vs. not use' guidance beyond this limitation.

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