set_return_pan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the pan range but does not disclose any side effects, whether the change is immediate, reversible, or requires specific permissions. As a setter, some behavioral context (e.g., 'this overrides existing pan automation') would be expected.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear summary line followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It provides the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, the lack of indexing convention (zero-based vs one-based) and any note about behavior on invalid indexes leaves slight gaps in a fully autonomous 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?

Schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the meaning of 'return_index' and specifying the valid range for 'pan' (-1.0 to 1.0). However, it does not clarify whether return_index is zero-based or one-based, which is a minor 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 clearly states the action ('Set the panning') and the resource ('a return track'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_pan and set_master_pan. It could be more explicit about being for return tracks only, but the name and description together make it clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It neither mentions that this is for return tracks specifically nor points to set_track_pan for regular tracks. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and description, which is not explicit.

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