set_master_pan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the valid range of the pan parameter (-1.0 to 1.0, 0.0 center), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it changes playback, is reversible, or requires specific permissions), leaving some 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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action and a clear bullet for the parameter. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured.

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 one-parameter setter, the description is complete: it names the target resource, the action, and fully documents the parameter. No output schema is needed, and there are no nested objects or complex return values.

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 only lists a number parameter with no description (coverage 0%). The tool description fully compensates by explaining the meaning, allowed range, and center value, making the parameter's semantics complete.

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 action ('Set') and the specific resource ('the master track panning'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_pan and set_return_pan. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage for the master track, which differentiates it from track or return panning. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when to use this tool versus siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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