set_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the db/value preference and the master track limitation, but does not explain what happens if both db and value are null, or if both are provided. It also doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible or if it affects playback.

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 concise and well-structured: an intro sentence, a usage tip, a limitation note, and a bullet-point parameter list. Every line earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a setting tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter meaning, and a key constraint. However, it omits edge cases like how db and value interact (e.g., which takes precedence) and the effect of calling with both null, which could leave an agent uncertain.

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—and it does. Each parameter is explained: track_index, send_index (including that 0 maps to return track A), db, value (with examples), and track_type (with default). This exceeds the schema's bare type information, providing crucial semantic context.

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 function with a specific verb+resource: 'Set one of a track's send levels.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_volume and set_track_panning, which handle other mixer parameters.

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 provides useful usage context: it advises preferring `db` over raw `value` (similar to volume tools) and explicitly warns that the master track has no sends. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list makes the distinction clear. However, it doesn't state when not to use the tool beyond the master track limitation.

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