set_track_output_routing_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., track existence), or whether the change is immediate. This leaves significant gaps for safe usage.

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 a single sentence that is concise and includes a helpful cross-reference. No unnecessary words 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?

Given three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, and prerequisites. The cross-reference helps but does not compensate for missing behavioral and parameter context needed for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% with no descriptions for the three parameters. The description only mentions 'track_index' and 'channel_name' implicitly through 'set a track's output routing channel by display name', but provides no explanation of their format, constraints, or relationship to other tools.

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 action ('set'), the resource ('track's output routing channel'), and the method ('by display name'). It distinguishes from siblings like set_track_output_routing_type and set_track_input_routing_channel by specifying output channel and referencing get_track_routing.

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 references get_track_routing for finding display names, implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context is clear.

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