set_layer_submaster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'set value' without revealing whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, triggers immediate output changes, or has side effects. The response format is also not mentioned.

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 a single short sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it is too brief to cover necessary details, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It could expand slightly without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description misses critical context such as typical value ranges, layer numbering conventions, and the fact that this sets the submaster fader value (not other layer properties). The output schema exists but is not leveraged to clarify return values. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain each parameter. It mentions 'deck A or B' but does not confirm that the deck parameter accepts strings 'A' or 'B'. No descriptions are given for layer or value (e.g., valid ranges or units). The description adds negligible meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 action ('set value') and the resource ('specific layer on deck A or B'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on different properties or scopes. However, it does not specify what the 'value' represents (e.g., intensity, fader level), leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_current_layer_submaster or set_storage_place_submaster. It lacks any contextual cues about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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