set_track_volume_pan

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's a mutation. The description adds the behavioral detail that it accepts fuzzy values like '-6dB' and 'center', which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on other behaviors such as range limits or side effects.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding key behavioral detail. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 3 parameters, the description covers the main behavior and input format. It does not specify how tracks are identified (name vs index), but given the schema's track string, this is minor. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe returns.

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 input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates by providing concrete examples of acceptable fuzzy values for volume and pan ('-6dB', '+3', '50%', etc.), adding meaning beyond the schema. The track parameter is left implied but is straightforward.

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?

Description clearly states it sets fader/pan for a track, using the verb 'Set' and specifying the resource as 'fader/pan'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_fx_param or set_tempo, which operate on different resources.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it. Sibling tools provide many alternatives like set_fx_param, but no context is given to differentiate them.

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