set_track_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions parameter ranges but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing send levels), error conditions (e.g., invalid send index), or confirm that the operation is reversible.

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 (two sentences plus a short list), but the parameter list is inline rather than structured. No unnecessary information, but could be slightly better organized.

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 low complexity and existence of an output schema (context confirms), the description covers the essential action. However, it omits context like error handling or default behavior, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: track_index (0-based), send_index (0=Send A), and value (0.0-1.0). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 it sets a track's send level, with an example (reverb/delay send). It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (track's send), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_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?

The description indicates the tool is for setting send levels but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., ramp_send for gradual changes) or specify any prerequisites (e.g., existence of the send).

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