polynodes_granular_duration_mod_range

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns a 'JSON confirmation,' which is minimal; it says nothing about which device/node is affected, whether the change persists, or how it interacts with the base granular duration.

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 description is short and front-loads the operation, but the 'Args: params: value.' and 'Returns: JSON confirmation.' boilerplate adds no information and reads as auto-generated filler.

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 needn't be explained. However, for a one-parameter mutation tool in a family of ~25 similarly named setters, the description omits any disambiguation against granular_duration or set_playback_rate_mod_range, leaving the agent with insufficient context to pick 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?

Schema description coverage is reported at 0% for the top-level 'params' wrapper, and the description's 'params: value.' restates the parameter name without adding meaning. The 0.0-0.75 range is already enforced and documented in the nested schema, so the description compensates for nothing.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Set granular duration modulation range') and includes the valid range, which distinguishes it from siblings like polynodes_granular_duration and polynodes_set_playback_rate_mod_range. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the granular duration control or the other mod-range setters. The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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