set_track_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the value range (0.0-1.0) and 0-based indexing, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, permissions, or what happens if an invalid index is used. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 short (one sentence), but the sentence is grammatically awkward and misleading ('to return track send_index'), which harms comprehension. It is not effectively structured; a clearer phrasing would separate setting the level from identifying the send.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and moderate complexity, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the role of each parameter, the optionality of value/value_normalized, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema helps return values but does not compensate for the lack of context for a setter operation.

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 partially explains 'send level (0.0-1.0)' (likely value) and 'send_index (0-based)', but does not explain track_index, or the optional value_normalized parameter, nor how value and value_normalized relate. The description adds some meaning but leaves significant gaps.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource ('Set a track's send level'), but the phrase 'to return track send_index (0-based)' is confusing and potentially malformed, obscuring whether this is a setter or a getter and what 'return track' refers to. It does distinguish from sibling set_track_* tools, but the ambiguity reduces clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_volume or set_track_pan. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the track must exist, send must be available) or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool.

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