set_return_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It makes clear this is a mutating operation and adds the volume range constraint (0.0 to 1.0), which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior on invalid indices or relationship to other settings, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear parameter list. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 setter, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks context on how to determine valid return_index values (e.g., using get_return_tracks) and does not mention error behavior or the actual effect on the session. The zero-based ambiguity further reduces completeness.

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%, so the description's explicit list of both parameters with explanations is essential. It adds the critical volume range and clarifies that return_index refers to the index of the return track. Yet it does not specify whether the index is zero-based, which is a minor gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'set' with a clear resource 'the volume of a return track'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_volume which targets regular tracks, and set_return_pan which targets pan. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'return track' provides clear context for when this tool applies, and the parameter list makes it easy to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for regular tracks), though the distinction is implicit.

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