katana_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the UI side effect ('BOSS TONE STUDIO UI updates immediately'), atomic validation ('all-or-nothing'), and the critical no-clamping rule, which tells the agent invalid values will be rejected rather than silently coerced. It stops short of describing error responses or whether a live connection is a prerequisite.

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, each load-bearing: scope first, key conventions second, validation semantics last. No filler and the most decision-relevant fact (not saved to a patch) is front-loaded.

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 single-nested-object mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers side effects, atomicity, key syntax, and where to discover valid values. The remaining gap is failure/connection behavior, which matters given sibling tools katana_connect and katana_launch imply a session prerequisite.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by giving the actual key naming convention with typed examples (amp.volume numeric, amp.type "LEAD", booster.on boolean, delay.time) that the schema's generic string-keyed object does not convey. It also points to katana_list_params for the full key/range vocabulary.

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 one or more parameters live') and immediately scopes it as an edit-buffer write that is not persisted to a patch, which separates it from any patch/save path. The key-format examples make the resource concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what it is mutating.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to katana_list_params for valid ranges, which is real alternative-routing rather than implied guidance. The 'edit buffer, not saved to a patch' clause clarifies the use case, though it never states when not to use this tool or that a connection must already exist.

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