xr18_adjust_send_db

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the sign behavior ('Positive delta_db raises the level') and the accepted bus addressing forms. But it does not address clamping, error handling for invalid source/bus, persistence, or authorization requirements.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: the first front-loads the core action, and the second delivers dense parameter and sign semantics. 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?

The tool has no annotations and a bare schema, making the description the primary guidance. It covers the complex 'bus' addressing well and clarifies delta behavior, but the unexplained 'source' parameter and lack of limit/error behavior leave the definition incomplete for fully correct invocation in all cases. The existence of an output schema covers return value expectations.

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 property descriptions are at 0% coverage, so the description must teach the parameters. It richly explains 'bus' (number, bus/5, fxsend/2, monitor/wedge, configured destination) and gives meaning to 'delta_db' (positive raises). However, 'source'—a required, polymorphic parameter—is entirely unexplained, which is a significant 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 states a specific action: 'Change a source send level by a relative dB amount.' It clearly identifies the resource ('source send') and the operation ('relative dB amount'), which distinguishes it from siblings like xr18_set_send_db (absolute set), xr18_get_send_db (get), and xr18_adjust_fader_db (fader adjust).

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 'relative dB amount' and 'Positive delta_db raises the level' imply this tool is for relative adjustments, which helps an agent choose it over absolute-setting tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the contrast to inference.

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