Set Fairlight Makeup Gain

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

Annotations already declare the write is non-destructive, idempotent, and mutation-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context about what the parameter physically does, but says nothing about whether the change is audible immediately on air or requires the input to exist/be selected.

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 tight sentences front-load purpose and the concept definition, followed by a short args block. The args block largely duplicates the schema, so it is slightly redundant, but it is short and the input mapping carries information the schema lacks.

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?

With only two required scalar parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema to explain, the description gives everything an agent needs to call it correctly: the operation, the units, the value range, and the input numbering convention.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by mapping input numbers to cameras ('1=Camera 1, 2=Camera 2, etc.') and restating the 0-20 dB valid range for gain. The integer type for input is only clarified verbally, which is a small plus.

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 (Set) and a narrow resource (makeup gain on a Fairlight audio input), and the second sentence defines what makeup gain is functionally. It is clearly distinct from sibling dynamics tools such as atem_set_fairlight_compressor or atem_set_fairlight_limiter, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 explanation that makeup gain 'compensates for volume lost during compression' implies it is used in conjunction with compressor settings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, ordering, or prerequisite guidance (e.g. whether the input must be a Fairlight input, or whether it should be set after compression).

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