kde_audio_set_volume

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and external-effect profile is covered. The description adds real value with "live" (takes effect immediately on the running system, no restart) and "verify" (the call confirms the resulting value), but it says nothing about permissions, partial failure, or what "verify" actually returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, range, and verification behavior all land in one line. It is efficient, though it spends words duplicating the numeric range instead of covering the unidentified parameters.

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?

This is a destructive, four-required-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, so the description should explain how to target a device and what verification returns. It covers only the volume range and leaves device identification, direction semantics, and the verification result undocumented.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the 0-100 range that a minimum/maximum already encodes in the schema. It gives no meaning for session (fixed to "user-desktop"), direction (sink vs source selection), or how device_name should be obtained, leaving three of four required parameters unexplained.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Set") with a specific resource ("live sink/source volume") and adds a verification step, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like kde_audio_set_mute or kde_audio_set_default without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for changing volume level, while muting and default-device selection belong to siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so guidance is minimal but not absent.

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