tidal_set_control

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains the control-port mechanism, that patterns are not re-evaluated, and that a number glides over the given seconds for sweeps/fades. It omits failure behavior (e.g., setting an unknown control name) and persistence, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause, then adds mechanism and an example that each earn their place. Slightly dense with two long sentences, but there's no filler.

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 3-parameter control setter with no annotations or output schema, the description is largely self-sufficient: mechanism, usage example, and glide behavior are all present. Only edge cases like invalid names or persistence are left unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the example ties the "name" parameter to the cF/cS lookup ("cutoff") and expands on the "seconds" parameter's glide semantics beyond the schema's brief note.

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 and resource ("Change a named value in Tidal") and clarifies the mechanism (the control port, without re-evaluating a pattern), which distinguishes it from tidal_eval. It doesn't explicitly separate itself from the more specific setters like tidal_set_tempo, but the named-value/control-port scope is clear.

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?

Gives the concrete workflow: patterns read the value with cF/cS, then you set it here, backed by a runnable example. It establishes when to use this tool clearly, though it stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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