volume_down

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds little beyond the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or the actual default behavior, and it contains a discrepancy with the schema default (says -5, schema says 5). This is not a contradiction with annotations but fails to provide useful extra transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though the incorrect default value detracts from its quality.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but the erroneous default and lack of clarification about step semantics (e.g., whether negative values are allowed) leave gaps. The misleading default is a critical omission.

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 parameter is documented. However, the description incorrectly states the default as -5 while the schema says 5, which actively misleads. This misinformation is worse than providing no additional context, so the score is below the baseline.

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 verb 'Baisse' (lowers) plus the resource 'volume de la TV' clearly states the action. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like volume_up (raises) and volume_set (sets a specific value). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 such as volume_up, volume_set, or mute. It simply states the action without any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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