set_grand_master

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool can black out a show and advises confirmation during performance, which is valuable risk-related context. It does not describe return values or persistence, but the output schema exists and the warning covers the most critical behavioral trait.

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 three sentences with the purpose stated first, followed by a crucial safety note. Every sentence earns its place and no words are wasted.

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 two-parameter setter with a complete output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and the most important behavioral caveat (blackout risk). It could mention prerequisites like connection state or that the effect applies globally, but the existing content is sufficient for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'level' and 'fade_seconds', including the default and meaning of null. The description adds 'optionally fading' which aligns with fade_seconds but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Sets the grand master level') and immediately clarifies its unique scope ('scales the entire rig'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_playback_level and set_blackout by highlighting its master-level impact.

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 a caution ('Confirm before sending it during a performance') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_blackout or set_playback_level. The usage context is implied by the name and the risk warning, but no positive or negative selection criteria are offered.

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