Set volume

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

Annotations already cover idempotence, non-destructiveness and closed-world scope, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral information: values above 50 are refused for safety. It does not say how the refusal surfaces (error vs. silent clamp), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the operation and scale come first with the safety cap immediately after. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 single-parameter, idempotent mutation with no output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is set, the units, and the practical limit. Only the error surface of a refused level is omitted.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it names the parameter's meaning (absolute level), its 0-100 range, and the effective cap at 50. It does not explain that requests of 51-100 are accepted by the schema but rejected in practice, leaving a real ambiguity for the agent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (sets the volume), the absolute scale (0-100), and the transport (DLNA). No sibling in the list offers volume control, so the scope is unambiguous without needing to name an alternative.

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?

Implied usage only: use this to set absolute volume. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of whether a relative/mute-style operation exists, and no prerequisites such as pairing state. The 50-level cap is a constraint, not routing guidance.

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