send_set_midi_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the special '31=disabled' behavior and channel semantics (0=all, 1-16=specific), which adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema. However, it omits details like whether the send must already exist or the index base.

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 front-loaded: a clear purpose sentence, a brief use-case expansion, a one-line special behavior note, and a compact parameter list. No sentence is wasted.

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 with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, all parameters, and special disable behavior. Minor gaps include index base (0-based vs 1-based) and explicit return/confirmation behavior.

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%, but the description compensates by fully documenting each parameter, including allowed values and meanings (e.g., midi_source_channel: '0=all channels, 1-16=specific, 31=disabled'). This is exemplary compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Set MIDI source/destination channel on an existing send') and clarifies the routing scenario ('route MIDI from a source track to a specific channel on a multi-timbral VSTi'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling send_set_* tools.

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 provides a concrete use case ('Use this to route MIDI...') and the disable behavior, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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