polynodes_set_gain

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the accepted value range and that the call returns a JSON confirmation, but says nothing about permission requirements, per-level side effects, or how gain interacts with solo/other levels.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns blocks are compact and scannable. The Args line largely restates the schema, so it is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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 simple idempotent setter, the essentials are present: target scope, valid range, and confirmation of a JSON return (and an output schema exists). It stops short of describing level semantics or interaction with gain_solo, which leaves a minor gap for an agent choosing among the many polynodes setter siblings.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level 'params' wrapper, so the description must carry weight. It does list the three level values and the dB unit, but this mirrors the nested GainInput schema (which already has min/max -80/20 and field descriptions) rather than explaining what a 'macro/meso/micro' level actually controls or how the value is applied.

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 gain') plus the target scope (macro/meso/micro layer) and the valid dB range, so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as polynodes_gain_solo or polynodes_set_dry_wet, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 prerequisites (e.g., whether playback must be running), and no mention of alternatives like gain_solo or set_dry_wet. Usage is only inferable from the name and the enumerated level values.

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