set_return_pan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (set panning) and parameter ranges, but does not mention side effects, error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., valid return_index), or whether the change is immediately applied.

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, with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear parameter list. No unnecessary information is included, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 two well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. However, it does not note potential failure modes or that the return track must exist, which would be useful for an agent invoking this tool blindly.

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 description fully explains both parameters, including the exact range for pan (-1.0 to 1.0) and the meaning of return_index. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this complete parameter documentation is essential and well done.

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 states a specific action ('Set the panning') on a specific resource ('return track'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_pan and set_master_pan. It is precise 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 implies usage for return tracks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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