mixer_volume

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

Annotations declare only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioural burden. 'Set' confirms a mutation, but nothing is said about scale/units beyond the schema, whether the value persists, whether muting overrides it, or how it relates to mixer_channel_volume. It adds essentially no context beyond the annotation.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded. Its brevity is genuine conciseness rather than padding, though it is arguably terse to the point of leaving questions unanswered.

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 two-parameter setter with 100% schema coverage, no output schema and no nested objects, the description is minimally sufficient. The main gaps are the value range/units and the interplay with mute and per-channel volume, which an agent would likely need.

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%: both left and right are documented with type and a '(0.0+)' lower-bound note. The description adds nothing about maximum range, channel independence, or stereo linkage, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (Set) plus resource (master mixer volume), and the word 'master' implicitly scopes it against the sibling mixer_channel_volume. However, the sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the master-vs-channel distinction rather than being told it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite obvious siblings (mixer_channel_volume, mixer_mute, mixer_unmute, mixer_status) that an agent must choose between. Only implicit usage is conveyed by the phrase 'master ... volume'.

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