Set mixer track pan

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency (idempotentHint: true) and non-destructiveness. The description adds the numeric range for pan, which is already partially in the schema, providing minimal additional behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words.

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 simplicity, an output schema exists, and the description adequately covers the essential behavior. No additional context is necessary 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?

The schema covers 2 parameters, with 'value' having a description of the range. The tool description repeats the range, adding no new information. The 'track' parameter lacks schema documentation, but the description does not clarify its semantics (e.g., zero-based indexing). Schema coverage is 50%, so the description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 target ('mixer track's pan position'), and the range ('-1 left .. +1 right'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like fl_set_mixer_volume or fl_set_mixer_mute.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as fl_set_mixer_volume for gain or other pan-related tools. The usage is implied but not clarified.

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