set_bus_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary operation and optional enable/disable, but does not disclose side effects, whether existing send settings are overwritten, what 'enabled' defaults to, or any persistence behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the optional enable/disable clause is a meaningful addition rather than repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits important context such as validation limits already present in the schema, what happens when the send is disabled, whether the send is created if missing, and any behavioral consequences beyond setting a value.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'db' as a level in dB and for 'enabled' as the send on/off toggle, and hints that 'bus' is the destination. However, it does not clarify source_index semantics, output behavior, or the relationship between the parameters beyond the source/destination framing.

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 clearly states the specific action: setting a send level from a source (channel, aux, or bus) to a bus destination, expressed in dB, with optional enable/disable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that address faders, mutes, pan, naming, and OSC operations.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_fader or adjust_fader. The usage context is only implied by the description's reference to bus sends, with no exclusions or decision criteria.

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