set_device_routing

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

The description clarifies that this tool modifies routing settings and notes a prerequisite (get_device_routing) and a follow-up action (set_device_parameter for ducking). Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, which is not contradicted. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is concise, with two sentences covering the main action and parameter mappings, plus a brief note on ducking. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 tool has 4 required parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and key parameters. It explains the usage pattern with get_device_routing and set_device_parameter. However, it omits details about track_index and device_index, and does not describe the return value (though output schema exists).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides useful explanations for two parameters: field (listing values) and display_name (from get_device_routing). It does not explain track_index or device_index, which may be obvious to domain experts but lack explicit documentation.

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 device's sidechain audio input. The verb 'Set' and resource 'device routing' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_routing and get_device_routing by specifying 'device's sidechain audio input'.

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 context: it explains that display_name comes from get_device_routing and for ducking, one must also use set_device_parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like set_track_routing.

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