cw_set_pan

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the transport (live MIDI CC10), documents a build-specific limitation that explains the tool's existence, and warns that channel must be read from the strip rather than guessed. Gaps remain on failure modes (wrong channel, MIDI port disabled) and whether the change persists, but the core behavioral picture is solid.

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 what the tool does, followed by why it exists and the parameter caveat. No filler, though the middle justification clause is slightly long relative to its routing value.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero required parameters, the description covers mechanism, rationale, and the ambiguous parameter, which is enough to invoke correctly. It could still say what the caller observes afterward or how errors surface.

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 67% and the one undocumented parameter, `channel`, is exactly the one the description clarifies: it is the MIDI channel the track listens on, not its track position, plus where to read the value. This preempts the most likely invocation error, which is precisely the description's job.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Set a track's pan") and immediately identifies the mechanism ("through the live MIDI cable (CC10)"), which distinguishes it from the accessibility-based sibling cw_set_track_pan. An agent knows exactly what this call does and via which path.

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?

It gives clear selection context by ruling out the competing path: the track strip's pan slider is read-only through accessibility on this build, so this MIDI route "actually works." It does not explicitly name cw_set_track_pan or state when-not conditions, keeping it a 4 rather than a 5.

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