set_track_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (changes mute/solo/arm), the undo granularity (one Live undo step), and a validation constraint that rejects arm on return/master tracks. It stops short of describing error behavior for an invalid track_index or what 'verify' actually returns.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then side effects, an example, and edge cases in descending order of importance. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, side effects, undo semantics, a concrete example, and a key constraint. The only real gap is the meaning of 'verify' — whether the call returns the resulting state — and failure behavior on bad input.

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, and it largely does: the example reveals the 0-based track_index convention ('0 ... mutes the first track'), the boolean nature of value, and the valid property values. It does not explain whether index counts all tracks or a filtered subset, and says nothing about out-of-range indices.

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 ('Set and verify one boolean track property') and enumerates the exact property domain (mute, solo, arm), so an agent knows precisely what it mutates. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as set_parameter_value or set_track_state, which an agent may confuse it with.

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 example call and the stated edge case ('arm is rejected for return and master tracks') give clear conditions for when this tool applies and when a specific property value will fail. There is no explicit comparison to alternative tools like set_parameter_value, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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