track_set_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of different input_index values and that track_index is 0-based. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether changes are immediate, reversible, or require specific permissions.

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 with a brief intro followed by an args section. It is well-structured and front-loaded. Each sentence provides necessary information. Minor waste: the 'Args:' section could be integrated but it's fine.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter details, and valid value ranges. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but for a simple setter this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains track_index as '0-based track index' and input_index with a detailed mapping (none, mono, stereo, MIDI, MIDI all). This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Set recording input.' It provides a detailed mapping of input_index values (0=none, 1-1024=mono, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that set other track properties like mute or volume.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., track_set_record_arm). However, it does provide specific valid input values, which guides usage. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are given.

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