set_track_volume

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

Discloses key behavior: value is normalized 0.0-1.0, with specific dB mapping (~0.85 = 0 dB, 1.0 = +6 dB). Although no annotations exist, the description provides enough context for safe invocation. Could mention if it affects automation or is real-time, but still strong.

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?

Compact and well-structured: primary sentence, then alternative suggestion, then parameter list. No fluff. Slightly redundant because parameters are listed in schema, but still helpful for quick reference.

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?

With only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers usage, value mapping, and an edge case (need for more gain). Could optionally mention if the change is immediate or whether it affects existing automation, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates: defines both parameters explicitly, including track_index as 'The index of the track' and value as 'Normalized volume 0.0-1.0' with dB mapping. This adds essential 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?

Clear verb-resource pair: 'Set a track's mixer fader'. Distinguishes from siblings like set_track_mute or set_track_solo by specifying the exact function. Also clarifies the normalized value mapping, adding specificity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'For bigger gain than the fader allows, add a Utility device and use set_device_parameter on its Gain.' This tells the agent not to use this tool for high gain scenarios and provides a direct alternative.

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