Set Fairlight Limiter

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds useful domain context (what a limiter does) and parameter ranges, but does not say whether omitted optional params are left untouched or reset, nor how the change is confirmed.

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?

Two purpose sentences followed by a compact arg list — front-loaded and easy to scan, with no filler prose. Minor redundancy in restating the min/max values the schema already enforces.

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 6-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, units, and valid ranges, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The remaining gap is behavioral — no statement about partial-update semantics or how to verify the resulting limiter state.

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 100%, so the schema already carries baselines and bounds; the description adds meaning beyond it by mapping 'input' to concrete camera numbers (1=Camera 1, 2=Camera 2) and by labeling units and optionality explicitly. It repeats the schema's ranges but in a single scannable block.

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 limiter on a Fairlight audio input') and scopes it to a single input, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'atem_set_fairlight_master_limiter' without naming it explicitly. A short functional gloss ('prevents audio from exceeding the threshold') reinforces intent.

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 on when to use this versus the master limiter, the EQ/compressor/gate siblings, or 'atem_reset_fairlight_dynamics'. Nothing states prerequisites (e.g., that the input exists or that Fairlight processing must be enabled) or what happens when optional parameters are omitted.

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