polynodes_crush_range

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety bar is lower. The description adds only a vague 'JSON confirmation' return note and no rate limits or auth context, so it adds modest value over the annotations.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, which is good, but the boilerplate 'Args: params: value.' line and 'Returns: JSON confirmation.' add words without information.

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 single-parameter setter with annotations and an output schema, most essentials are covered by structured data. Still missing is what the range semantically controls (e.g., sampling-frequency multiplier) and how it relates to polynodes_crush_bit_level.

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% and the description's parameter section ('Args: params: value') is a tautology that restates the property name without meaning. The 0.0-5.0 range it cites is already enforced by the schema's minimum/maximum and the nested value description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('bitcrusher sampling frequency range') with its value domain, so the tool's function is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as polynodes_crush_bit_level or polynodes_crush_switch.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling crush tools an agent could confuse this with. Usage is only inferable from the name itself.

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