set_track_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by explaining the send index order, the value range (0.0 to 1.0), and that values are clipped to range. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not mention potential out-of-bounds errors or side effects, which prevents a perfect score.

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 succinct and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose, then provides necessary context about send indices, recommends a supporting tool, and ends with an organized parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple setter tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to interpret parameters, and how to verify the number of return tracks. It does not cover edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid track_index), but that is a minor omission for this tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description includes a dedicated Parameters section that explains each parameter: track_index as 'Source track', send_index with the A=0/B=1 mapping, and value with range and clipping behavior. This fully compensates for the bare schema and adds significant meaning.

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 function: "Set how much of a track's signal is sent to a return track." This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_mute by specifically targeting sends to return tracks.

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 for usage, particularly by explaining that send indices match the order of return tracks and recommending get_session_info to determine how many return tracks exist. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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