channel_set_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only gives the volume range but does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens on invalid input (e.g., index out of range). The description fails to inform the agent about potential destructive effects or response behavior.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes critical numeric context without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not explain return values, error behavior, or required conditions. For a two-parameter setter, more context (e.g., whether volume is immediate, if channel must exist) would improve completeness.

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%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning to the volume parameter by explaining the scale and 0 dB reference, but it does not explain the index parameter (likely channel index). This is helpful but incomplete, warranting a middle score.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sets channel volume with a specific verb and resource. It provides the valid range and a calibration point (0.78 ≈ 0 dB), making the purpose unambiguous. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like channel_set_pan, the action is distinct and well-defined.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mixer_set_volume for mixer tracks). No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned. The description only states the action and range, leaving the agent without decision-support for selection.

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