Set Black Hole gravitational force per layer (macro, meso, micro) from 0.0 to 1.0 to control spatial sonic synthesis through OSC.
Set Black Hole gravitational force per layer (0.0-1.0).
Args: params: level and value.
Returns: JSON confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the per-layer scoping and the 0.0-1.0 range, but says nothing about whether the effect must be switched on, how layers interact, or what 'per layer' means operationally.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and range in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args/Returns block. Slight waste in the boilerplate 'Returns: JSON confirmation', which is redundant given an output schema exists.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return format needn't be explained, and annotations cover the mutation/idempotency profile. For a single-parameter setter, the description supplies the operation, target, and value range, which is sufficient to call it correctly.
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?
Context reports 0% schema description coverage at the top level, but the nested ForceInput schema does document 'level' (macro/meso/micro) and 'value' (0.0-1.0). The description merely restates the parameter names ('params: level and value') and repeats the range, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Set Black Hole gravitational force per layer', with the value range included. An agent can distinguish it from polynodes_blackhole_switch and polynodes_whitehole_force by the force-vs-toggle and black-vs-white distinction, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent must infer that this sets a continuous force value whereas polynodes_blackhole_switch toggles the effect on/off, and nothing indicates whether the black hole must first be enabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.