android_volume_set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate mutation. It adds the 'reported range' qualifier and the one-stream scope, but it does not disclose what happens if the level is outside the reported range or whether the setting persists. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to the behavior or scope of the tool.

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 simple parameter set and annotations make a short description viable, but without an output schema the agent is left guessing about success or error behavior. The reliance on 'reported range' without naming android_volume_get as the source of that range is a notable omission.

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 does not compensate. The 'stream' enum values and the meaning of 'level' are left to the schema, and while 'reported range' adds useful context, it is not enough to make up for the lack of parameter-level explanation.

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 states a clear verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('one Android audio stream'), and the nature of the operation ('to an explicit level'). It is distinct from volume_get, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like android_media_action, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention calling android_volume_get first to discover the reported range, nor does it explain when to choose this over android_media_action or android_volume_get.

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