cw_set_track_pan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the critical behavioral trait: the required dispatch mechanism is unavailable in this build. It also cross-references cw_set_track_volume for the same limitation. It stops short of saying what actually happens on invocation (error vs. silent no-op) or the return shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scale, then the blocking constraint, then the alternative. No wasted words and the most decision-relevant fact (it may not work here) arrives early.

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 2-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the semantics that matter and the environment limitation. The gap is the undefined 'index' parameter and the absence of any statement about failure behavior or confirmation of effect, which matter given the dispatch caveat.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for 'pan', giving the full scale with endpoints and centre, but says nothing about 'index' (presumably the track index, minimum 1 in schema). Half the parameters gain meaning beyond the schema, half do not.

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+resource ('Set a track's stereo pan') and immediately disambiguates from the closest sibling by naming cw_set_pan as the live-CC alternative. An agent can distinguish this from cw_set_track_volume and cw_set_pan 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 says the tool NEEDS CakeScript (T1) and that this SONAR build cannot dispatch it, then names the alternative path (cw_set_pan sending live CC10 on a MIDI channel). This is effectively a when-not-to-use rule plus a redirect, which is the strongest form of guidance.

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