osc_set_effect_mix

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. While 'Set' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or ambiguity.

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 insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, nor does it explain the broader context (e.g., what system or protocol this operates on). Given the complexity of audio mixing tools, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (effect number range 1-8, mix level range 0.0-1.0). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining what 'mix level' means in context or how effects are numbered. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('mix level for an effect'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'osc_set_effect_on' or 'osc_set_effect_param' by focusing specifically on mix level adjustment. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource context (e.g., audio mixer/OSC protocol), which prevents 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., effect must be enabled), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'osc_set_effect_param' for other effect adjustments. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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