set_return_device_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavior disclosure. It does disclose helpful behavior: the value is clamped to the parameter's range, and the return_index mapping (0 = A, 1 = B) is explained. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible. A score of 3 reflects that some valuable behavioral context is provided but not comprehensive.

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. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundant information. The example aids understanding without adding length.

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 simple parameter-setter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the action and all parameters with sufficient detail. The lack of usage guidance is a minor gap but does not hinder basic understanding. A score of 4 is appropriate given the tool's simplicity.

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 description provides clear, meaningful explanations for all four parameters, compensating fully for the 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter is defined with enough detail, including the index mapping and clamping behavior for value. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema properties.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('return-track device'), and provides a concrete example ('reverb decay on Return A'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_device_parameter, the resource is unambiguous, making it easy to identify the appropriate tool for return-track parameter editing.

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. It doesn't mention that this should be used specifically for return tracks instead of other setter tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit direction.

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