osc_set_gate_on

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation operation ('Enable or disable') but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether this affects audio routing or requires specific permissions), error handling, or response format. For a tool that modifies system state, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 easy to parse. 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 the tool's complexity (a state-changing operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool in a professional audio context (OSC/X32), more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 documentation for both parameters ('channel' as number 1-32, 'on' as boolean true/false). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'gate' means in this context or how enabling/disabling impacts the channel. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('gate for a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_gate' (which might set gate parameters rather than just on/off state) or 'osc_get_gate' (which retrieves gate status), leaving some ambiguity about its specific role in the toolset.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the channel must exist or be configured), compare it to similar tools like 'osc_set_gate' (which might adjust other gate settings), or specify error conditions. 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.