polynodes_set_comb_mod_range

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, but the description adds almost nothing behavioral beyond restating the numeric bound that the schema already enforces. It does not say whether the change applies immediately to a live audio node, whether it is absolute or offset, or what the 'level' selection affects.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and terse, but the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' boilerplate is largely redundant — the arg names add nothing and the return note duplicates the existing output schema. It is short, but not every line earns its place.

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, an output schema, and a fully bounded value, the essentials are present. Still missing is any hint about the effect domain (which comb parameter this modulates) or operational prerequisites, leaving an agent to guess how it interacts with polynodes_comb_switch and polynodes_set_comb_delay.

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 description only echoes the parameter names ('level and value') and repeats the 0.0-0.75 bound already encoded in the schema's maximum/minimum. The nested schema itself documents 'macro', 'meso', or 'micro' for level, which the description does not clarify or expand, so it contributes no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ('Set comb filter modulation range') with the valid value span, so the agent knows exactly what is being changed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby siblings polynodes_set_comb_delay or polynodes_set_filter_mod_range, which a one-line qualifier could have done.

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 mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether the comb switch must be engaged first), and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the sibling list.

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