set_track_volume

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint: false, which is minimal. The description does not add behavioral context such as whether the change is immediate and permanent, what happens if volume is out of range, or if there are side effects. It also omits the track_index parameter entirely, leaving the agent unaware of required identification. The description carries the full burden here and fails to disclose key behaviors.

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 short and to the point, but the Args section is incomplete—it lists only volume_db while the schema shows two required parameters. The structure is acceptable, but the omission of track_index makes it less effective. It could be improved by listing both parameters with brief explanations.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description must fully specify inputs. It fails to describe track_index, leaving a critical gap. The volume range is given, but no error handling or edge cases are mentioned. The tool is simple, yet the missing parameter makes it incomplete for an agent to call 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 coverage is 0% because the description mentions only volume_db but not track_index, which is also required. The description does explain volume_db's meaning and typical range, adding value for that parameter, but the track_index parameter is completely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess its semantics. This is a significant gap given both are required.

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 action (set volume), the resource (a track), and the unit (decibels). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_pan or set_track_mute by focusing on volume, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. It lacks a mention of the track_index parameter, but the core purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of typical use cases. The description only explains what it does, not when to choose it over other track-related setters. An agent would have to infer from the name and sibling context.

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