set_track_output_routing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'set' without mentioning potential side effects, failure conditions, authorization requirements, or whether the change is immediate and irreversible. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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: one imperative sentence and a compact parameter list. Every element serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler content, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is a simple setter, and the description covers the core parameters and a necessary reference to get_available_outputs. However, it lacks guidance on failure conditions, when routing_channel should be provided, and how this tool interacts with get_track_output_routing, leaving gaps for an agent to fill.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds basic meaning for all three parameters: track_index, routing_type, and routing_channel. It also provides a valuable pointer to get_available_outputs for routing_type options. However, routing_channel semantics are vague (only 'output channel (optional)') and track_index is merely restated with no additional detail.

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 'Set the output routing of a track' clearly identifies a specific verb (set) and resource (output routing of a track), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_input_routing and get_track_output_routing by explicitly focusing on output routing.

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 instructs the agent to 'use get_available_outputs to see options' for routing_type, providing actionable context on how to discover valid values. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the tool name and description make the use case obvious.

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