set_device_parameter

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses the min/max range constraint for value and the need to use get_device_parameters for valid ranges, which is useful. However, it does not describe what happens on invalid input, whether the operation is reversible, or what the tool returns (if anything), leaving behavioral gaps.

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 description is well-structured with an introductory statement, usage guidance, and a clear parameter list. It is slightly verbose due to some redundancy (e.g., parameter identification mentioned twice), but every sentence adds value given the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The description covers parameter semantics and prerequisite discovery, but it does not explicitly state that at least one of parameter_name or parameter_index is required (since neither is marked required in the schema). It also does not mention the return value or error behavior. This leaves ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates by providing a detailed parameter list for all 6 parameters, including semantics for track_index, device_index, value, parameter_name, parameter_index, and user_prompt. It explains the alternative between name and index and the value constraint, adding substantial meaning 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 description clearly states 'Set the value of a parameter on a device (instrument or effect)' with specific examples like filter cutoff and resonance, and it distinguishes from sibling tools such as set_multiple_device_parameters by focusing on a single parameter. It also references get_device_parameters for discovery, which adds context.

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 provides clear usage context by instructing to use get_device_parameters first to discover parameter names, indices, and valid min/max range. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like set_multiple_device_parameters or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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