set_audio_volume

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains the value semantics (0 = unity, negative = lower, positive = louder), which is real behavioral context beyond the bare schema. However it omits whether the set is instant or ramped, whether it persists, and any permission/state preconditions for a mutation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by value semantics and channel list. No filler; every clause 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?

For a two-param, no-output-schema mutation tool with no annotations, the description supplies the essential missing pieces (gain semantics and the channel vocabulary). It stops short of stating behavioral side effects or error conditions, but is close to sufficient.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds genuine meaning: it enumerates the valid channel names ('master', 'input1'–'input8', 'ddr1', 'ddr2', 'aux1', 'phones'), which the schema only illustrates with examples and no enum. The gain semantics reinforce the volume param.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Set the volume (gain) of an audio channel.' Distinguished from its closest sibling set_audio_mute (on/off vs level) though it does not name that sibling explicitly. The scope is unambiguous.

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 context is implied (adjusting an audio channel's level) but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, nor does it contrast with set_audio_mute or get_audio_state. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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