set_audio_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the volume range 0–150, the tri-state mute semantics (True/False/None), and default target/device behavior, but it omits side effects such as whether setting volume unmutes, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then uses a compact Args list. Every line maps to a parameter or scope detail, with no redundant prose.

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?

The tool is simple with four optional parameters and an output schema present, and the description covers parameter semantics and defaults. It could be stronger by noting prerequisites or failure behavior, but it is complete enough to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It documents all four parameters: target values, volume percentage range and example, mute three-state semantics, and optional device_id default, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: set volume or mute state for speaker/sink or microphone/source. It is clear enough to identify the action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighboring media tools such as play_test_tone or record_audio_sample.

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 identifies the two target types and the default device behavior, implying when to use sink vs source. It does not state when to use this tool versus other media tools or mention prerequisites such as PipeWire/PulseAudio availability, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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