set_return_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the volume range (0.0 to 1.0) but does not mention whether return_index is zero-based, what happens on invalid input, or any side effects. The mutating nature is apparent but not elaborated.

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. It includes a clean parameter list, and every sentence adds value without 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?

For a simple two-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and parameters. However, it omits details like zero-based indexing, validation behavior, and prerequisites, leaving some context gaps.

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 compensates by explicitly explaining both parameters: return_index as 'the index of the return track' and volume as 'the volume level (0.0 to 1.0)'. This adds meaningful range information beyond the bare schema, though indexing base is not specified.

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 purpose: 'Set the volume of a return track.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this from siblings like set_track_volume and set_return_pan by specifying 'return track'.

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 usage context (for return tracks) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided.

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