osc_set_compressor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool sets parameters, implying a write/mutation operation, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., if changes are immediate or require a save), error conditions, or permission requirements. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action ('Set') and specifies the parameters clearly, making it efficient and easy to parse without any wasted 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with three parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after setting the values (e.g., confirmation, error handling) or provide context about the compressor's state, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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?

The description mentions 'threshold and ratio for a channel', which aligns with the three parameters in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already provides detailed descriptions and constraints (e.g., ranges for channel, threshold, ratio). The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema documents, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the target ('compressor threshold and ratio for a channel'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_compressor_attack' or 'osc_set_compressor_on', which are related but handle different compressor parameters, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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. For example, it does not mention when to choose this over 'osc_set_compressor_attack' or 'osc_set_compressor_on', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing the compressor to be enabled first. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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