uad_set_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond a simple mutation statement by revealing that every item reports resolved device/index/name and per-property verified/before/after/warnings, giving the agent insight into response format and verification behavior. However, it does not mention persistence, undo, or authorization requirements, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then provides the item format in a compact notation, and ends with use/not-for guidance. Every sentence contributes valuable information without fluff or repetition of schema fields, achieving high information density.

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 complexity (many optional properties, batch operation, and no annotations), the description covers input format, return reporting, usage scenarios, and exclusions thoroughly. An output schema is present for return values, so the description doesn't need to explain every field; it provides the contextual information the agent needs to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema is minimal (just an 'items' array with additionalProperties true), so the description provides the essential parameter semantics. It enumerates all supported property keys with types and optionality markers (e.g., 'target: name or index', 'device?', 'fader_db?'), and explains the return structure. This is a substantial addition beyond the schema, making the tool usable.

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 tool's function as 'Batch-set channel state' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the exact properties it can modify (faders, mutes, solos, pans, names, visibility). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing what it is NOT for (uad_set_monitor, uad_set_preamp, uad_set_sends), providing strong 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 gives explicit 'Use when' guidance for changing multiple channel properties at once, and clear 'Not for' exclusions that name alternative tools and their targets. This tells the agent exactly when to select this tool versus alternatives, exceeding the minimum bar.

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