track_set_volume

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

Discloses idempotence within 1e-4, return of before/after linear and dB values, and verification diff on mismatch. This is good transparency for a volume setter, though permissions and side effects are omitted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and value range. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be slightly rephrased for clarity. Efficient.

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?

Lacks output schema but mentions return values. Does not address error handling (e.g., invalid index) or state changes. For a simple setter, this is minimally 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?

Schema covers 50% of parameters (volume has description). The description adds no extra parameter details beyond 'normalized 0..1', which is already in schema. Index parameter lacks description in both schema and tool description.

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 the tool sets a regular track's mixer volume as a normalized 0..1 value. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for naming, tempo, etc. However, 'regular track' is slightly ambiguous (excludes master?).

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 advises using after confirming the track index, providing minimal usage context. No explicit when-not or alternatives to other volume-related tools, but the sibling list lacks similar volume tools.

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