set_track_volume_db

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 does disclose important value semantics (-150 means -inf/silent, 0 is unity), which prevents misuse, but says nothing about permission requirements, reversibility, or persistence of the change.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+resource, and every sentence adds non-redundant value (unit, sentinel, range). No waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the value semantics are well covered, but the unexplained 'index' parameter is a real gap an agent needs to call the tool correctly. Adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'db' parameter (unit, -inf sentinel, unity point, practical range) but leaves the required 'index' parameter entirely unexplained — an agent cannot tell it must be a track index. This partial compensation warrants the baseline 3.

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 ('Set track volume') with the unit (dB), which cleanly separates it from set_master_volume_db and set_track_pan in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated by text.

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 value guidance ('0 = unity', 'typical mix range') but never says when to use this tool versus siblings like set_master_volume_db, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It reads as reference data rather than usage guidance.

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