track_set_volume_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the change is undoable and it stales the premix until re-mixed, plus the valid dB range. It omits permission/auth requirements and what the call returns, but the side-effect and reversibility disclosure is solid for a simple setter.

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?

Front-loads the action and range in the first clause, then adds two short sentences of semantics and side effects. No wasted filler, though the 'gain_db + fader_db' jargon assumes familiarity.

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 covers the essentials an agent needs: the parameter range, the undo guarantee, and the downstream stale-premix consequence. The main remaining gap is the undocumented project_path parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for fader_db (dB range -60 to +12, applied on top of staging gain), but track_id and project_path are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Set a track's saved volume in dB') with an explicit range, which is far more precise than the bare tool name. It implicitly separates itself from envelope/pipeline tools by clarifying the fader vs. staging gain relationship, but never names a sibling tool to disambiguate.

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?

Explains the semantic context of the fader ('on top of its staging gain', 'the pipeline's balance step never changes the fader'), which implies when this tool is the right lever. However, it never states when to prefer it over alternatives like set_envelope or track_set_mute_tool, nor any prerequisites.

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