polynodes_crush_bit_level

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only), so the description's 'Returns: JSON confirmation' adds almost nothing. It says nothing about whether the bitcrusher must be enabled, whether the change is applied live, or how it interacts with crush_range.

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?

Very short, but the 'Args: params: value.' and 'Returns: JSON confirmation.' blocks are pure boilerplate that restate structured fields without adding meaning. The single substantive sentence is front-loaded, which is good.

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 return values need no prose, yet the description still spends a line on 'JSON confirmation'. For a mutation tool in a large audio-effects family, nothing is said about required state, interaction with the crush switch, or effect of the change.

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 burden, yet it only offers 'params: value' — a tautological restatement of the schema key. The one useful fact, the 0.0-1.0 range, is already encoded as minimum/maximum in 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 bitcrusher bit depth level', with a value range. This distinguishes it from the sibling polynodes_crush_switch (on/off) and polynodes_crush_range, though it 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 indication of when to use this tool versus polynodes_crush_switch or polynodes_crush_range, and no preconditions (e.g. whether the bitcrusher must be switched on first). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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