set_sidechain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important dual-mode behavior (omit source to list), but says nothing about what happens on invalid input, whether the device must already exist, permission/auth needs, or return format. Adds some value but far short of full behavioral coverage for a mutation tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. The second sentence packs useful specifics (the ghost-trigger example, the required follow-up call) but is dense and slightly rambling; still, every clause carries information.

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 5-parameter read/write tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It never explains 'kind', 'channel', the index parameters, or what the listing mode returns, leaving the agent guessing on the majority of the interface.

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% across 5 params, and the description only explains 'source' (a track name, omit to list). It says nothing about track_index, device_index, the 'kind' enum (track/return/master), or the 'channel' default 'Post FX'. Most parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read or set the sidechain source of a Compressor (or any device with its own input routing).' This is clear and reasonably specific. Sibling differentiation is weak, though it does point to set_device_parameters as the complement for enabling S/C On, which helps separate the two tools.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: supply 'source' as a track name, then enable with set_device_parameters {'S/C On': 1}, and omit 'source' to list available sources. That covers the main workflow and the read-vs-write switch. It lacks explicit exclusions or guidance for edge cases (invalid source, no Compressor present).

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