osc_set_aux_fader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple setter function and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permission requirements, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. Given the tool's complexity (changing system state) and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the operation's implications and expected outcomes.

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%, with both parameters ('aux' and 'level') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides about these parameters. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 target resource ('fader level for an aux output'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_bus_fader' or 'osc_set_fader', but the 'aux' specification provides implicit differentiation. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'osc_set_bus_fader', 'osc_set_fader', and 'osc_set_main_fader' available, there's no indication of when an aux fader should be adjusted versus other fader types. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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