routing

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive. The description adds substantial non-structured behavior: the feedback-loop guard, the refusal condition, the allow_feedback escape hatch, the one-undo-step reversibility, and that Live only offers valid choices. This is real behavioral context beyond the 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?

Dense but front-loaded: it opens with the core read/change statement, then parameters, then the feedback caveat. Every clause carries information, though the long parenthetical enumerations make it slightly less scannable than ideal.

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?

With no output schema, the description discloses the return shape (type, channel, available_types/available_channels with their category values), covers the required and optional parameters, and documents the safety edge case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by giving concrete address examples ('tracks/N', 'returns/N', 'master', 'tracks/2/devices/1'), clarifying which parameters apply to get vs set, and noting the type/channel coupling constraint.

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 pair (read/change) on a precise resource (a track's or side-chain device's input/output routing), and scopes it to 'display names the mixer shows'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like set_properties or get_properties without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly documents the address forms, the direction values, that action defaults to get, and that set requires type/channel set together in one call since channels depend on type. It routes to an alternative path for the feedback case ('monitoring is set to OFF first with set_properties current_monitoring_state'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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