set_send_level

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the basic action and parameter semantics, including the level range (0.0 to 1.0), but omits any side effects, error behavior, or whether this modifies existing automation or is reversible. The description lacks sufficient transparency for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the action in one sentence, followed by a clear bulleted parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 is a simple setter, and the description fully specifies all required parameters. However, it lacks context about potential pitfalls such as invalid indices, zero-based indexing, or interaction with return track configuration. For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, this could be more complete.

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%, but the description compensates by clearly explaining each parameter: track_index (source track), send_index (corresponds to return track index), and level (0.0 to 1.0). This provides meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though it could add more detail about expected types or indexing conventions.

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: 'Set the send level from a track to a return track.' This is specific, uses a verb+resource structure, and differentiates from sibling tools like get_send_level by explicitly indicating the write operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the parameter description clarifies the meaning of track_index, send_index, and level, it does not mention any prerequisites, edge cases, or alternative tools (e.g., get_send_level for reading, or set_track_volume for volume).

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