Set Fairlight Compressor

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

Annotations already declare write, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds unit ranges and an input-to-camera mapping, but for a setter with six optional parameters it does not say whether omitted parameters preserve existing values or reset to defaults — the key behavioral ambiguity here.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and one line long, and the arg list is scannable. It is slightly redundant against the schema (ranges and units are duplicated), which costs a point but not readability.

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?

Mislabeled placeholder — ignore. Actual justification: for a 7-parameter closed-world setter with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, units, and bounds adequately. The remaining gap (partial-update semantics) is minor and does not block correct invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the schema already enforces min/max bounds that the description repeats. The one genuine addition is the input mapping ('1=Camera 1, 2=Camera 2'), plus the ratio example, which is useful but marginal.

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 and resource ('Configure the compressor on a Fairlight audio input'), and the phrase 'on a Fairlight audio input' implicitly separates it from atem_set_fairlight_master_compressor and the limiter/gate siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. connecting via atem_connect first), and no routing to alternatives like atem_reset_fairlight_dynamics or the master compressor. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the compressor terminology.

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