set_record_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does explain the meaning of the settings it mutates (input vs MIDI source, arm, monitor, record mode), but it does not disclose side effects such as whether omitted parameters are left unchanged, whether audio_input and midi_device are mutually exclusive, or interaction with an active recording.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then elaborates with concrete input categories. The parenthetical examples add useful meaning rather than filler, though the sentence is long.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main intent and input categories but is silent on parameter interactions (stereo pairing, no_input clearing, midi_channel), preconditions, and whether changes are destructive. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including stereo, no_input, and midi_channel (which the description never mentions). The description adds conceptual framing for audio_input/midi_device/monitor/mode, but not syntax beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — it sets a track's record configuration: input source, arm state, monitoring, and record mode. The parenthetical examples (mic, guitar, hardware synth) clarify the domain. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like set_track_properties or record, but the purpose is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says this is pre-recording setup, that it must precede the record tool, or how it relates to set_track_properties/list_inputs. The usage context (arming and routing a track before recording) is only implied by the description's wording.

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