uad_set_monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description transparently discloses important behavior: level_db is 'hard-railed', operations like unmuting/un-dimming/lowering dim_attenuation_db are treated as level events that can be refused, and level_db is written before the release is railed against the engine-reported level. This goes well beyond basic safety hints and helps the agent predict consequences.

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 packed into three scannable sentences, front-loading the primary action and parameters, followed by causal constraints and clear usage boundaries. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters and an output schema, yet no annotations. The description covers purpose, usage, and critical behavioral quirks, but it leaves the 'device' parameter unmentioned and does not describe output semantics beyond relying on the output schema. This is a minor gap in an otherwise rich description.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It names most parameters and adds meaningful context (e.g., 'level_db (hard-railed)'), but it omits the 'device' parameter entirely and does not clarify value formats or ranges for alt_speaker or dim_attenuation_db. Thus the description is helpful but not fully compensatory.

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 opens with 'Set the control-room monitor' and enumerates the exact attributes (level_db, dim, mute, mono fold, alt speaker selection, dim attenuation), making the tool's purpose specific and distinct. The 'Not for: headphone level' clause further disambiguates it from monitoring-related sibling tools.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when: changing what the control room hears, or recovering after uad_safe_state.' It also explicitly states when not to use it ('Not for: headphone level') and points to uad://limitations as an alternative reference.

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