set_master_volume

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Set the master track volume' and provides the valid range (0.0 to 1.0) and a default. However, it does not describe the effect on playback, whether the change is instantaneous, or if it overrides previous settings. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two brief sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second details the parameter. No extraneous words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one required parameter, the description covers purpose and parameter range/default. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'unity' (whether it's the default if absent, even though the parameter is required) or the return behavior. Missing output schema and no mention of side effects leaves it moderately complete.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the 'volume' parameter: its range (0.0 to 1.0) and a default (~0.85). This adds meaning beyond the schema's simple type definition, earning a 4.

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 'Set the master track volume,' specifying both the verb and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_track_volume' by specifying 'master,' making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to set master volume) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives like 'set_track_volume' for regular tracks. The absence of exclusions or comparative guidance keeps it at a 3.

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