osc_set_compressor_on

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Enable or disable') but doesn't describe what happens when enabled/disabling (e.g., whether it affects audio immediately, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on other settings). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and impact.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (success/failure indicators), error conditions, or behavioral details like whether changes are immediate or reversible. For a tool that modifies system state, more context about outcomes and constraints is needed.

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 boolean meaning). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'compressor' refers to in this context or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('Enable or disable') and target resource ('compressor for a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like osc_set_compressor, osc_set_compressor_attack, and osc_set_compressor_release by focusing specifically on the on/off state rather than other compressor parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation, keeping it from a perfect score.

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., whether the compressor must be configured first), when not to use it (e.g., if the channel doesn't exist), or how it relates to sibling tools like osc_set_compressor (which might handle broader compressor settings). Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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