volume_down

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

Annotations already carry the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the tool decrements the current volume state, but it does not mention edge behavior at minimum volume or the cumulative effect of repeated calls. No annotation contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object appear immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 simple command with one optional, well-documented parameter, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It does not state behavior at minimum volume or exactly how step maps to physical presses, but those are minor gaps for this tool.

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%, and the step parameter is fully documented with min/max/default and a human-readable explanation. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Baisse') and a clear target ('le volume du Denon'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like volume_set or volume_up, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when the goal is to lower the Denon volume. However, it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as volume_set for absolute control or volume_up for increasing volume.

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