set_device_parameters

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds critical context beyond that: changes are 'guarded bounded' and Looper State writes targeting Record/Overdub are flagged as recorded-content mutations where restoring a parameter doesn't restore audio. This enriches the behavioral understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a specific behavioral warning. Every clause earns its place; there's no redundancy or filler.

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 destructive mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key caveat (looper recorded-content) and the plan/apply nature. It doesn't mention prerequisites or return values, but these are largely implied by the schema and annotations. The description is sufficient for safe 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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds general context (guarded, bounded, exact loaded-device) but doesn't clarify any specific parameter beyond what the schema provides. It meets the baseline for high coverage without adding param-specific value.

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 tool plans or applies parameter changes to loaded devices, specifying the track types (ordinary, Return, Main). It implies a setting operation but doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative to distinguish from tools like recall_device_parameter_snapshot or set_looper_state, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.

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 implies a plan-then-apply flow and notes that Looper State writes are recorded-content mutations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like recall_device_parameter_snapshot or set_looper_state. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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