mixer_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it merely restates the boolean operation ('enable or disable') already visible in the schema. It does not disclose side effects, whether an existing route is required, or how disabling affects the send level.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word earns its place, even though more behavioral detail is needed elsewhere.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: track numbering, direction, default enabled behavior, and effect on an existing send. An agent would likely need to guess or call another tool to interpret the parameters correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints that two tracks are involved without explaining the direction or meaning of src_track vs dst_track. The enabled parameter is also not described beyond the verb, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Enable or disable') on a specific resource ('mixer route/send between two tracks'), which clearly conveys the core function. It is distinct from sibling send-level tools like mixer_set_send_level, though it never names an alternative.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this over mixer_set_send_level or channel_route_to_mixer, or how enabling a route relates to setting levels. The only implied context is the verb itself, which is not enough to route an agent to the correct tool.

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