set_master_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully explains the volume-to-dB mapping, but it does not disclose side effects, valid input range, clamping behavior, or whether changes apply immediately. This is incomplete but not misleading.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. The single command sentence is immediately clear, and the parameter detail directly follows without any filler.

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 one-parameter setter, the description is largely complete: it states the operation and meaning of the input. It lacks a note about valid ranges or usage scenarios, but the output schema exists and complexity is low, so the missing guidance is a minor gap.

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 input schema provides only a bare number type with no description. The description fully compensates by defining the meaning of volume values, including concrete reference points (0.0 = -inf dB, 0.85 = 0 dB, 1.0 = +6 dB).

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') and the target resource ('master track'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_track_volume, but the focus on the master track is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_volume or set_master_pan. There are no context clues, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.

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