volume_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full safety burden, and it does well by explicitly disclosing that the tool performs one read and one write via named endpoints. It also reveals the clamping behavior to 0-100, which is behavioral information beyond what the schema or parameter descriptions provide.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core action, then efficiently packs the endpoint mechanics and the read/write cost into a parenthetical. Every element adds value, and nothing is 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 small mutation tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential mechanics, the clamp behavior, and a clear cost signal. It could go further by noting prerequisites like the need for an active device or what happens when no device_id is specified and none is active, but it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke safely.

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 documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the step-based intent, and the clamp detail applies to the resulting volume rather than to any parameter's format.

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 identifies the action ('Nudge volume up/down by a step') and the resource (player volume), making it immediately distinct from absolute setters like set_volume or gradual rampers like volume_ramp. It also names the exact endpoints involved, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 implies this tool is for relative, step-based volume changes rather than absolute setting, but it never explicitly states when to choose it over set_volume or volume_ramp. It gives no exclusion criteria or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer the intended usage context from the verb 'nudge'.

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