Set a fader

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (Lua SetFader API), the valid value range, the default token, and the toggleable-fader hint for 'enabled'. It does not say whether the change takes effect immediately on live output, what happens on an invalid ref, or what is returned.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and value range, then the token inventory, then the alternative path. The long token list is justified because the schema leaves 'token' undescribed, though the enumeration is dense.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description makes no claim about return values, and it does cover the two parameters the schema leaves thin (token tokens/default) as well as the value range. For a 4-param mutation tool this is nearly complete; only error/precondition behavior is unaddressed.

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 50% and the undocumented 'token' parameter is exactly where the description adds value, enumerating all valid tokens (FaderMaster, FaderX, FaderXA/XB, FaderTemp, FaderRate, FaderSpeed, FaderHighlight, FaderLowlight, FaderTime, FaderSolo) with a stated default. It reinforces the 0..100 range but does not add meaning to 'ref' beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Set) plus the resource (a fader of a playback object) and scopes the target set explicitly to sequence, executor's assigned object, or master. It also names the sibling tool (gma3_command) that handles the timed-fade case, so an agent can separate it from both gma3_get_fader and gma3_command.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use this for a direct value set via the Lua SetFader API, and route timed fades to gma3_command with a concrete example. It also flags FaderMaster as the default token. It stops short of stating exclusions such as preconditions or when the fader doesn't exist.

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