set_track_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and parameters without mentioning side effects, reversibility, error handling, or any Live-specific behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a parameter list with useful clarifications. No filler or redundant information.

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 setter, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it omits behavioral details such as what happens if the track index is invalid, whether the change is immediate, and any prerequisites. Given no output schema and no annotations, these gaps keep it at a minimum viable level.

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 the description's parameter explanations are essential. It adds meaningful context for volume (linear range and unity point) and explains user_prompt's telemetry purpose, though track_index remains vague (no mention of indexing scheme).

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 the tool's action—'Set a track's mixer volume'—with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling track setters like set_track_pan, set_track_mute, and set_track_solo.

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 context that this tool is for adjusting a track's volume, making its usage obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is sufficient for most cases.

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