set_playback_level

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral nuance: omitting fade_seconds uses the playback's own raise/lower times, resulting in a moving not snapping change. This is valuable beyond the schema. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but the most surprising behavior is highlighted, so a 4 is warranted.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second paragraph is a focused warning. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy or fluff. It is well structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the essential behavior and parameters. The only gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, but this is a minor omission given how distinct the tool's purpose is.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantic value by clarifying that omitting fade_seconds is not equivalent to a zero-second fade and explicitly advises passing 0 for an instant change. This goes beyond the schema's 'Omit to use the playback's raise/lower time' by emphasizing the practical implication.

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 a specific verb (sets) and resource (a playback's fader level), and adds the optional fading capability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_grand_master or fire_cue, which target different controls. The scope is 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 operational context: set a playback's fader level with optional fade. It includes important guidance on the distinction between omitting fade_seconds and passing 0, which affects behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings or mention exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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