set_master_device_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait: the value is clamped to the parameter's range. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., non-existent device or parameter), side effects, or whether the change persists. Without annotations, this is a moderate but incomplete disclosure.

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: one purpose sentence plus a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is easy to scan and directly usable.

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 description is adequate for a simple setter, covering purpose, parameters, and clamping. However, it lacks guidance on discovering device_index or parameter_name (e.g., via get_master_device_parameters), and it does not explain return behavior or error handling. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description lists all three parameters with brief meanings. It clarifies that device_index is the index on the Master track, parameter_name is the parameter's name, and value is clamped. This goes beyond the bare schema titles and compensates for the lack of schema documentation, though the parameter_name explanation is somewhat generic.

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 action (Set a parameter) and the specific resource (a Master-track device), with an example (Glue Compressor threshold). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_device_parameter, set_chain_device_parameter, and set_return_device_parameter, which target different track types.

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 implicitly defines when to use it: for any parameter on a Master-track device. It provides clear context through the 'Master-track' qualifier, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools (e.g., use set_device_parameter for other tracks). This is clear but lacks explicit contrast with siblings.

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