set_track_solo

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that solo affects monitoring but not clip/device content, and that other tracks may stay soloed. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by behavioral context and an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple setter, the description covers behavior, scope (regular track), and alternatives. An output schema exists, so return values are handled. It is mostly complete although it omits potential failure conditions.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description repeats the boolean meaning and adds 'regular track' context, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb 'set' and the resource 'regular track's solo state', with a specific action (solo or unsolo). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'set_track_mute' by directing users to use that for silencing.

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 clear context: solo changes monitoring and does not alter content, warns that other tracks may remain soloed and need manual clearing for exclusive auditioning, and suggests an alternative tool (set_track_mute) for silencing. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but is adequate.

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