set_master_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates that this is a mutation operation on the master volume, but it does not disclose whether out-of-range values are clamped, whether the change is persistent, or what side effects might occur. Basic behavior is clear, but richer behavioral context is absent.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. The one-line purpose and one-line parameter explanation are efficient and directly usable by an agent.

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?

Given the tool has a single required parameter, a documented range, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. However, the lack of sibling differentiation or usage context slightly reduces completeness in the broader toolset.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter: "volume: Master volume (0-200, 100=normal)". This adds a range and a meaningful reference point that the raw schema does not provide.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Set the master volume." This clearly distinguishes the tool from volume-related siblings like set_track_volume and set_mixer_channel_volume because it targets the master volume, not a track or mixer channel.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes set_track_volume and set_mixer_channel_volume, but the description does not mention these or any conditions that would make one volume control more appropriate than another.

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