set_track_routing

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, so the description adds behavioral context: it enables sidechain sources, bus routing, and resampling with recording implications. While it does not detail all consequences (e.g., audio flow changes), it provides meaningful extra information 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?

The description is very concise, using three short sentences to convey purpose, fields, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (routing in a DAW) and that an output schema exists, the description covers purpose, fields, use cases, and a prerequisite. It does not discuss error conditions or potential side effects, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description compensates partially by listing valid values for the 'field' parameter and instructing users to get display names from get_track_routing, but it does not explain each field's function or provide constraints for track_index. Given low schema coverage, more detail would be expected for a higher score.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Set') and resource ('track routing'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_track_routing. It lists the specific fields (input_routing_type, output_routing_type, input_routing_channel, output_routing_channel) and explains use cases like sidechain, bus routing, and resampling.

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 explicit guidance to 'Get options from get_track_routing first,' indicating a prerequisite for knowing valid display names. It also implies scenarios for sidechain and bus routing, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like set_send.

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