Adjusts the resonator wet/dry balance between 0.0 and 0.5 to control spatial synthesis mix levels in PolyNodes audio output.
Set resonator wet/dry balance (0.0-0.5).
Args: params: 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 and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only that the return value is a JSON confirmation, which is redundant given there is an output schema; it adds little beyond 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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the main action first. The Args and Returns sections are boilerplate but not harmful. Efficient overall.
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?
There is an output schema, so explaining return values is unnecessary. However, with 0% parameter description coverage despite one parameter, the description should provide more context about what 'value' means and how it affects the resonator. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with no schema description on its only parameter.
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 should compensate, but it only restates 'value' vaguely as 'params: value.' It does mention the 0.0-0.5 range, which is also in the schema's minimum/maximum. The description fails to fully compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 resonator wet/dry balance) with a range, which is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings. It lacks explicit differentiation from the very similar polynodes_set_dry_wet or polynodes_resonator_switch, but the resonator-specific qualifier helps.
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 guidance on when to use this versus polynodes_set_dry_wet or polynodes_resonator_switch. The range (0.0-0.5) is stated but that is a parameter constraint, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.