set_track_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 uses the verb 'Set' to indicate a modification operation, and it discloses the valid range for the pan parameter (-1.0 to 1.0). It does not, however, describe other behavioral aspects such as output/return values or error handling, which are absent since no output schema exists.

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 declarative sentence followed by a two-item parameter list. It avoids fluff, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence contributes meaning. The structure is clean and 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?

For a simple setter with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains both parameters and the valid range. A minor gap is the lack of explicit clarification on whether track_index is zero-based or one-based, which is common in audio APIs, but this is a minor omission given the 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining both parameters: track_index is 'the index of the track', and pan is 'Pan position from -1.0 (full left) to 1.0 (full right). 0.0 is center.' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare type/title information in the schema.

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 opens with 'Set the panning of a track', a specific verb+resource combination that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling track controls like set_track_volume and set_track_mute by explicitly naming 'panning'.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. However, the intent is implied by the tool name and description: use this when you need to adjust a track's stereo pan position. This aligns with 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.

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