xr18_adjust_fader_db

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary behavior (change fader by relative dB) and adds valuable detail about the sign convention: 'Use a positive delta_db to raise and a negative delta_db to lower.' This explains how the parameter affects behavior. It does not disclose error handling, clamping limits, or prerequisites, but for a simple fader adjustment this is reasonable. The description goes beyond a bare statement of action by clarifying the delta semantics.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential guidance on delta_db sign. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 two-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core action and delta_db semantics but leaves gaps. It does not specify the source format (string vs integer), which is crucial for correct invocation. It also omits any mention of error conditions or limits (e.g., dB range). Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete—it would benefit from a note on how to identify the channel.

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, so the description must compensate. It fully explains delta_db with the sign convention, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'number' type. However, it does not clarify the 'source' parameter beyond implying it identifies a channel; the anyOf type (integer/string) is left ambiguous—whether string refers to a channel name, ID, or alias is not specified. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves the other under-specified, resulting in partial compensation.

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 a specific action: 'Change a channel's main mix fader by a relative amount in dB.' It specifies the verb (change), the resource (channel's main mix fader), and the nature of the change (relative, in dB). This distinguishes it from siblings like xr18_set_fader_db (absolute) and xr18_adjust_send_db (send fader), though it doesn't explicitly name them. The phrase 'main mix fader' differentiates it from send faders, making the purpose 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 description implies when to use this tool: for relative adjustments, as opposed to absolute settings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for selecting this tool over xr18_set_fader_db or xr18_adjust_send_db. The word 'relative' gives context, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit, and no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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