cw_set_track_solo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the prerequisite state and that it reports a `verified` value read back from the DAW. It does not say whether the change is reversible/undoable or what happens if the track index is invalid.

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, then the verification behavior, then the precondition. No filler, though the embedded Chinese button label '独奏' is a minor clarity oddity.

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 two-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and the `verified` readback, but leaves the `index` parameter and the shape of the reported result under-explained.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. The verb implies the meaning of `solo` (true=solo, false=unsolo), but `index` — presumably a 1-based track index — is never explained, and neither param is clarified.

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 (solo/unsolo) and resource (track), clearly distinct from sibling setters like cw_set_track_mute and cw_set_track_arm. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 prerequisites ("Needs a project open and the track visible"), which is real usage context, but it offers no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or exclusions relative to the mute/arm siblings.

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