set_track_input_routing

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 only states the action and lists parameters without disclosing side effects, validation behavior, whether the change is immediate or reversible, or any requirements beyond the parameter hints. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose in one clear sentence. The parameter list is tidy, uses consistent formatting, and contains no redundant or filler text.

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, the essential parameters are covered and the cross-reference to get_available_inputs is helpful. However, the lack of annotations and output schema means behavioral details like error conditions, side effects, and return values are missing, leaving the description only minimally complete.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining track_index, routing_type, and routing_channel. It notably marks routing_channel as optional and cross-references get_available_inputs for routing_type values, adding meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 uses the specific verb 'Set' and resource 'input routing of a track', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_input_routing and set_track_output_routing. The action and target are 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to set a track's input routing) and includes a helpful directive to call get_available_inputs to discover routing_type options. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like get_track_input_routing.

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