set_track_input

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden by explaining the optional 'channel' parameter with examples. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., affecting recording) or required state (e.g., stop playback).

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, using only three short lines to convey the main purpose, prerequisite, and parameter detail. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, the only optional parameter, and a critical prerequisite. It does not mention error cases or return values, but the output schema presumably handles that.

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 adds meaning to the 'channel' parameter with examples and explains that 'input_name' should be obtained via get_track_routing. The other required parameters are self-explanatory given context, so the description compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action (set), the resource (audio/MIDI input), and the target (track). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_track_output and get_track_routing by specifying the exact function.

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 advises using get_track_routing first to know valid input names, providing a clear prerequisite. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the hint is sufficient for appropriate tool selection.

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