Set volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the two volume specification methods and the 0-100 range, but it does not explain the confirm parameter, what happens if both volume_percent and volume_db are provided, or any side effects. This is a moderate amount of transparency but leaves 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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses three short sentences that each add value: the action, the two input modes, and an example. There is no redundancy or extraneous 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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, and the description leaves notable ambiguities (e.g., precedence between volume_percent and volume_db, role of confirm, source_name specification). While an output schema exists, the description does not fully round out the tool's usage for an agent, especially regarding optional 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 compensate. It explains volume_percent (0-100) and volume_db, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, source_name is only implied via the example, and confirm is not addressed at all. The compensation is partial, covering two of four parameters.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the volume of an audio source.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_volume (read) and mute_source (toggle mute). The mention of volume_percent and volume_db further specifies the resource being modified.

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 a clear context for use (setting audio volume) and includes a concrete example ('set my microphone to 70%'), which implies how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, 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.