group_set_level

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true indicates that the tool may have destructive effects, but the description does not elaborate on what those might be or how to mitigate them. There is no mention of the confirm parameter, which likely serves as a safety check. The tool changes settings, which might overwrite existing intensity values, but the description doesn't clarify reversibility or side effects, leaving the agent to infer.

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 sentence with no wasted words, efficient and to the point. It is appropriately sized for simple tools. It front-loads the main action ('Set a group intensity') and includes the range constraint, which is useful. However, it misses opportunity to add context but does not over-elaborate.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, destructiveHint), the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on the 'group' identifier, the meaning of 'confirm' (likely to confirm a destructive change), and any behavioral consequences. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the result is, but it doesn't. The missing parameter semantics and usage guidelines make it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without guesswork.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description does not elaborate on the 'group' parameter (e.g., how to identify a group) or the 'confirm' parameter (what it does, whether required for destructive operations). The 'level' parameter is somewhat clarified by the range in the schema, but the description adds no additional meaning. This is a significant gap given no schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb 'Set' and resource 'group intensity', and includes the allowed range (0-100). It is clear that this tool modifies the intensity of a group. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like submaster_set_level or channel_set_level, but the resource type 'group' is distinct enough for basic differentiation.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as channel_set_level or submaster_set_level. Context signals show a sibling 'submaster_set_level' which could be confusing, but no exclusions or alternative references are given. The description only implies usage for setting group intensity, but without context on when a group is required over other entities.

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