polynodes_ringmod_freq

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the value range and the 'per layer' scoping, but omits prerequisites (switch state), whether the setting persists, and what 'level' layers actually affect.

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 sentence is front-loaded and brief, but the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' boilerplate adds little: the Args block just names the sub-fields and the Returns block is made redundant by the existing output schema.

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 setter on a complex audio node with an output schema present, the agent still lacks the unit of the frequency, the effect of each layer, and whether ringmod must be switched on. The presence of an output schema excuses the thin Returns line, but the operational gaps remain.

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?

The nested schema already describes level as 'macro', 'meso', or 'micro' and value as 'Mod frequency (1.0 to 3.0)', yet the description merely restates 'params: level and value' without explaining units, valid layer names, or the meaning of the frequency value. It does not compensate for the reported 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Set ring modulator center frequency per layer (1.0-3.0)'. This distinguishes it from polynodes_ringmod_switch and the other set_* parameter tools, though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from the sibling switch tool.

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 guidance, no prerequisite such as whether the ring modulator must be enabled via polynodes_ringmod_switch first, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling setter tools.

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