set_send

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that it mutates state. However, it does not disclose behavioral nuances such as the purpose of the 'confirm' parameter, whether both db and delta_db can be provided simultaneously (and what happens if they are), or any side effects. The mention of db vs delta_db and tap point adds some context, but significant behavior remains undisclosed.

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 two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the role of 'confirm', does not specify how to format source/dest beyond the general types, and does not explain edge cases like providing both db and delta_db. An agent would need to guess or consult other sources to use the tool correctly for all scenarios.

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 explains db (absolute) and delta_db (relative), and clarifies the tap point options (e.g., PRE = pre-fader, usual for monitors). It also implies the values for source and dest by stating 'from a channel/aux/FX return to a bus (bus1-6, monitor mixes) or FX send (fxsend1-4).' However, it does not describe the 'confirm' parameter or the exact string formats for source and dest. Partial compensation is present, but not complete.

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 tool's action: 'Set the send level from a channel/aux/FX return to a bus or FX send.' It specifies the resource (send level) and the destinations (bus1-6, monitor mixes, fxsend1-4), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_fader or set_mute. The verb 'Set' is explicit and 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for send levels, but it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for faders or mutes) or reference sibling tools. An agent must infer the context, which is not ideal for a tool with many sibling setters. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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