Set isomorphic modulation depth for frequency, amplitude, or resonance (0.0–2.0) in PolyNodes spatial synthesis. Adjust modulation intensity to shape sound.
Set isomorphic modulation depth for freq/amp/res (0.0-2.0).
Args: params: param 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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the valid value range (0.0-2.0) but nothing about auth, hardware state, or what the JSON confirmation contains beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.
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 scoping sentence with the range, followed by brief Args/Returns boilerplate. Efficient overall, with the Returns line being slightly 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 and rich annotations already cover return shape and safety, and the description supplies the depth range. What is missing is the relationship to the isomorph modulation switch siblings, leaving a gap an agent must resolve itself.
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?
Top-level schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it names the nested fields ('params: param and value') and repeats the 0.0-2.0 range, but omits the enum values 'freq', 'amp', 'res' for the param field. The nested schema does carry those, so the description is only marginally additive.
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+resource ('Set isomorphic modulation depth') and enumerates the three targets ('freq/amp/res'), so an agent can tell what the tool affects. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like polynodes_isomorph_mod_switch or polynodes_isomorph_switch, which govern enable/disable versus depth.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the sibling switch tools. The agent must infer that this sets depth while isomorph_mod_switch toggles it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.