xr18_channel_set_fader

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only restates the action and value scale. It does not disclose behavior for out-of-range values, clamping, validation, idempotency, permissions, or what happens when the source is invalid or unresolvable.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The core action and value scale are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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?

While the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description omits important context: how source should be specified or resolved, whether values outside 0.0-1.0 are valid, and how this differs from the dB-based fader tools. The missing source semantics and lack of annotations leave a notable completeness gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaningful semantics for normalized_value by specifying the native 0.0-1.0 range, which is not in the bare schema. However, 'source' remains underdefined; the anyOf integer/string type is not clarified by the description.

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 ('Set a source fader') and the value scale ('native normalized 0.0-1.0'), which helps distinguish it from the dB-based fader siblings. However, 'source' is not expanded, leaving some ambiguity about whether it refers to a channel, input, or bus.

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 normalized-value wording subtly implies this tool is for setting faders in the 0.0-1.0 domain rather than in dB, and sibling tools like xr18_set_fader_db confirm that alternative. Yet the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer the routing.

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