osc_set_compressor_attack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for this tool's purpose.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error messages), behavioral constraints, or integration with other tools. For a 2-parameter write operation in a complex audio mixing context, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (channel number range and attack time range). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as units for attack time or typical usage values. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('compressor attack time for a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other compressor-related siblings like 'osc_set_compressor' and 'osc_set_compressor_release' by specifying the attack parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a compressor enabled), exclusions, or compare it to other compressor-setting tools like 'osc_set_compressor' or 'osc_set_compressor_on'. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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