channel_set_level

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation is already flagged, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention the optional confirm parameter, what setting intensity affects, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and scannable, though it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail that other dimensions require.

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 setter with three parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the confirm parameter, differentiate from closely related set-level tools, or describe expected behavior or return value, leaving the agent to guess in contexts where several similar tools exist.

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 for parameter meaning. It adds 'intensity' as semantic context for the level parameter, which is useful, but it says nothing about the channel parameter or the optional confirm parameter, leaving significant gaps.

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 identifies the action ('Set') and the resource ('a channel intensity'), and the (0-100) range adds specificity. It distinguishes itself from channel_set_dmx by using 'intensity', but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as group_set_level or submaster_set_level.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like channel_set_dmx or group_set_level. The tool name and description imply its purpose, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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