mixer_set_pan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide the valid input range (-1.0..1.0), which is useful, but it does not mention whether the pan is absolute or relative, how invalid track indices are handled, or any side effects. This is adequate but minimal for a mutating operation.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the key information ('Set mixer track pan') is front-loaded before the parameter range. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 two-parameter setter with no output schema, the action and allowed value range are described sufficiently for a basic call. But given there are no annotations, the description stops short of covering edge behavior, track validity, or whether the operation can fail, leaving some ambiguity for an agent relying solely on this text.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'pan' by specifying the -1.0..1.0 range, which the schema lacks, and clarifies that 'track' refers to a mixer track. However, it does not specify the indexing convention (0-based vs 1-based) or whether the pan value is linear or logarithmic.

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?

'Set mixer track pan' clearly identifies the verb, resource, and value being manipulated, and the range (-1.0..1.0) disambiguates the operation from related mixer setters. It does not explicitly contrast with channel_set_pan, but the word 'mixer' makes the resource scope 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 implies it should be used when adjusting pan on a mixer track rather than on a channel, based on the word 'mixer' and the sibling channel_set_pan tool. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of when the alternative channel_set_pan would be appropriate.

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