set_sample_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that unsupported values are rejected and implies validation against a supported list, which is useful behavioral information. It could additionally describe success effects or connection requirements, but the core behavior is adequately covered.

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 sentences carry all necessary information: the action and parameter meaning first, followed by the prerequisite and failure behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 setter with no output schema, the definition is complete: agents know what to set, how to express the value, how to obtain valid options, and what happens if they do not. The reference to get_supported_sample_rates also connects relevant sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the 'hz' parameter. It does so clearly by stating the unit and giving a concrete example ('10000000 = 10M'), plus the validation behavior tied to valid values.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Set the sample rate in Hz', which clearly distinguishes it from get_sample_rate, get_supported_sample_rates, and other sample-related setters. The unit example reinforces the meaning without ambiguity.

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 description explicitly instructs the agent to call get_supported_sample_rates first and warns that unsupported values are rejected. This provides a clear prerequisite and behavioral expectation, effectively guiding tool selection and invocation order.

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