live_set_send

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the target must be a 'running' Studio One instance (live connection required), that level is bounded 0..1 (stricter than the schema), and that level/mute are applied 'and/or' (partial update). It does not state what happens on an invalid channel or index, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or whether the change is undoable via live_undo.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the range constraint attached directly to the parameter it governs. The trailing parenthetical is slightly awkward in placement but adds needed provenance information with no wasted prose.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across four parameters, the description is on the thin side. It covers intent and the level range but omits error behavior and result, which an agent needs to call and recover from this write operation safely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'level' (0..1 range, absent from the schema) and for 'index' (provenance from live_sends), and maps 'mute' to the muted flag. It says nothing about the format or identity of 'channel' (name vs. path vs. id), leaving one of the two required parameters ambiguous.

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?

Names a specific verb (Set) and resource (send level and/or mute on a channel), scoped to the running Studio One instance. It is distinguishable from live_sends (read) and live_add_send (create), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(index from live_sends)' implies the prerequisite that the index must be obtained from live_sends first, which is useful ordering guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to live_add_send or live_set_channel, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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