set_track_output_routing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the operation is destructive), error handling for invalid track_index or routing_type, or reversibility. The optional routing_channel is noted, but the mutation behavior is not elaborated, which is a significant gap for a setter 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. Every line contributes information, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It earns full marks for efficiency.

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, the description provides the core operation and parameter semantics, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. Without annotations or an output schema, the description is not fully self-contained; an agent would need to infer error behavior and compatibility. It is adequate but has clear gaps, making it a minimum viable description.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so by listing all three parameters with meaningful explanations. It clarifies track_index as the index of the track, routing_type as the output type with a pointer to get_available_outputs for options, and routing_channel as optional. This adds genuine value beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of specifying value formats or allowed patterns.

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 a specific verb-resource statement ('Set the output routing of a track') and the parameter list clarifies the exact operation. The name and sibling tools (e.g., set_track_input_routing, get_track_output_routing) make the distinction clear, so the tool is unambiguously identified.

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 only usage guidance is the parenthetical reference to get_available_outputs, which implies a prerequisite step to discover routing options. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions, leaving the usage context only partially implied.

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