set_pan

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the pan value range and what values mean, which is useful behavioral context. But it fails to disclose whether the operation overwrites existing state, whether some strip kinds support pan, how invalid or out-of-range values are handled, or what the response is. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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 short sentences carry all the information. The action is front-loaded, and the range mapping is compact and easy to parse. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain what 'index' represents, what valid indices are for each kind, or how the operation behaves under edge conditions. The agent would need to infer or probe too much to call the tool confidently.

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?

The schema only documents the 'kind' parameter (33% coverage), leaving 'pan' and 'index' with only type constraints. The description adds important semantics for pan (-100 left, 0 center, +100 right), which is genuinely helpful. However, 'index' remains unexplained—the agent only knows it is an integer ≥1 and doesn't learn what it refers to or its bounds per strip type.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Set pan position of a strip', which clearly identifies the tool's function. The value mapping for pan (-100 to +100) further clarifies the domain. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling set tools like set_fader or set_mute, though the resource itself is fairly specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_fader or adjust_fader. It also doesn't state any context, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The only additional content is a parameter value explanation, which is not usage guidance.

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