Set Fairlight Master Limiter

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

Annotations already declare openWorld=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — critically, it does not say whether omitted optional parameters are left unchanged or reset, which is the main behavioral ambiguity for a five-optional-arg setter. It also does not state whether the change is audible immediately or requires an explicit apply.

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 one-sentence purpose line is well front-loaded, but the entire Args block is verbatim duplication of schema content that the agent already receives. The description would be stronger spending those tokens on behavior (partial update semantics, defaults) instead.

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 five-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what is changed and the valid ranges. It leaves out the two things an agent would still need: whether calling with a subset of args is a partial update or a full replace, and how to confirm 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 description coverage is 100%, and every parameter already carries its unit and numeric bounds in the schema. The description's Args block restates the identical names, units, and ranges without adding meaning such as typical/default values or interaction between attack/hold/release. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does all the work.

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 (configure) and a precisely scoped resource (the limiter on the Fairlight master output). The 'master output' qualifier distinguishes it from the per-input atem_set_fairlight_limiter sibling, though the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus atem_set_fairlight_master_compressor, atem_set_fairlight_limiter (per-input), or atem_reset_fairlight_dynamics. The only guidance is inferable from the tool name and the 'master output' phrase; nothing tells the agent about prerequisites or exclusions.

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