sampler_set

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by stating that omitted fields are preserved and that the change is undoable. It still does not describe permissions, return behavior, or edge cases, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses a compact one-sentence structure with no filler. The semicolon-separated field list is dense but efficient; it could be slightly clearer structurally, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the important missing behavioral context: partial-update semantics and undoability. Track/slot identification is handled by the schema, and no output schema exists, so the description is complete enough without additional return-value detail.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by grouping envelope fields with units and ranges, listing the playback_mode enum values, and stating that omitted fields remain unchanged, but it does not provide deeper per-parameter semantics than the schema already offers.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it changes how an audio clip's sampler plays. It enumerates the sampler fields, which clearly distinguishes it from general device or clip-writing tools. However, it does not explicitly route the agent away from siblings such as sampler_get, sampler_slice, or devices_set_params.

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 phrase 'fields left out stay' clarifies partial-update behavior, and 'Undoable' gives useful usage context. But the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of sampler_get for reading, sampler_slice for slicing, or other parameter-setting tools, so guidance remains 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.