mixer_set_stereo_separation

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

The description adds the -1.0..1.0 valid range, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, error behavior for out-of-range values, or interaction with track state; those are not disclosed.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and the range is attached to the relevant parameter without wasted words.

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 description is not complete enough for a caller to confidently use the tool: it does not define the track parameter semantics, does not state whether values are clamped or rejected, and gives no indication of return behavior. For a simple setter some of this is inferable, but critical details are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by defining the separation value range. The track parameter is left ambiguous — it could be a 1-based index, 0-based index, or a name — so the agent still lacks full semantic meaning for one of the two required parameters.

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) on a specific resource (mixer track stereo separation) and includes the valid numeric range. It differentiates from sibling mixer_set_* tools by naming the exact property being modified, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus other mixer setter tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of which track identifier format is expected. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving usage context entirely to the agent.

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