mixer_group_route

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral hazard (potential crash) when routing across surfaces, which is crucial for an agent to avoid misuse. Since no annotations are provided, this carries full weight. It also implies mutation (routing changes connections) but doesn't explicitly state it. Despite that, the warning is a significant disclosure beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear args as Args block has each parameter, which is concise and concise no format, but the details the format details are no details on the parameters that are not in the description is not surprising, but the description is good for 0% coverage baseline 4 because it provides no guidance from schema. The description lacks examples of the parameters but no schema coverage includes the parameters covered.

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?

The description adds implicit context, but the coverage is high on the complexity of the schema lacks details, but the parameters are no alternative to the description, but the answer is 4. For a tool that covers 0% schema coverage, it adequately describes the purpose but no output schema. The description is incomplete — missing parameter syntax or examples — but adequate for basic use.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameters. The description provides a brief explanation for both parameters: target is the group path/GUID, and output_target is destination bus/group path/GUID. This adds meaning, but since schema lacks details like format for paths, it is incomplete. It explains the parameter names but no syntax clues; however, the schema has no descriptions, so this covers the gap adequately.

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: 'Route a group's output to a bus or group.' It uses a specific verb ('route') and resource ('group's output'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mixer_group_rename or mixer_group_volume. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, but the primary function is evident.

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 a specific warning about when NOT to use this tool: 'Keep routing inside the same event/mixer surface — routing an event's master track into a different event's mixer has been known to crash Studio.' This gives clear context on safe usage. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when to choose this over other routing tools (though there's no direct alternative).

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