set_mic_volume

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive local mutation. The description adds the absolute-percentage framing but says nothing about out-of-range clamping, whether setting the volume also unmutes the microphone, or persistence across sessions.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the valid range included. Nothing is padded and nothing is buried.

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 single-parameter local mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is needed to select and call the tool. The only meaningful gap is interaction with the mute state, which toggle_mic_mute suggests is a real concern.

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 100% and the single parameter already carries 'Mic volume percentage (0-100)', so the schema does the documentation work. The description restates the range but adds no unit, precision, or clamping behavior beyond the 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 name and description state a specific verb (Set) plus a specific resource (microphone input volume), and the 'microphone input' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling tool set_volume, which controls output volume. The differentiation is implicit through wording rather than an explicit 'not to be confused with' statement, so it stays at 4.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool rather than increase_volume, decrease_volume, or toggle_mic_mute, and it states no preconditions. The agent must infer from the name that this tool sets an absolute level.

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