Group tracks into a bus

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

The description discloses the exact routing changes, the rollback unit behavior, and optional rename. Annotations (idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true) are supported by this detailed behavioral info. No contradiction; the description adds significant context beyond the annotations.

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, each essential: first states purpose and routing; second adds rollback context. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action. Conciseness is excellent.

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 the tool's complexity (3 well-documented params, 100% schema coverage, existing output schema), the description covers operation, rollback, and routing in sufficient detail. No gaps remain.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of sources and bus in routing, the constraint that bus is not Master, and the optional rename. This exceeds the schema's simple type descriptions.

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 groups sources into a bus with specific routing, using a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only grouping tool among many unrelated tools, and the EXCLUSIVELY keyword emphasizes the routing pattern.

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 implies usage: when you want to group tracks into a bus with defined routing. It provides the rollback context for undoing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternative grouping methods, which prevents a 5.

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