set_send_gain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations — it does not explain the dry_run flag, the confirm_delete flag (whose presence on a 'set gain' tool is surprising), the -193 to +6 dB clamp, or expected_revision conflict handling.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with verb and resource and contains no filler. Its brevity is under-specification rather than verbosity, which is penalized elsewhere, but the sentence itself is well-formed and waste-free.

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 mutation tool with a nested request object, a revision guard, a dry-run mode and a confirm flag, six words are far from sufficient — an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the description leaves the agent unable to judge scope or the meaning of the safety-related parameters.

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 carry the parameter burden, but it only supplies the dB unit for gain_db. Six nested fields (track_id, send_id, gain_db, dry_run, confirm_delete, expected_revision) are undocumented — particularly confirm_delete, which an agent could easily misread as implying this tool deletes something.

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 ('Set') and resource ('send level') plus the unit (dB), so the agent knows this writes a send's gain value. It gives no contrast with adjacent siblings such as set_track_gain, set_region_gain, or create_send, so the agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of prerequisites (must the send already exist?), no mention of the alternative gain-setting tools, and no note about when to prefer dry_run over applying the change. The agent is left to guess from the tool name.

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