set_parameter_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the mutation side effect ('mutates one device parameter in one Live undo step'), the verification behavior, and failure semantics for disabled/unknown/out-of-range parameters. It stops short of stating the accepted value range/normalization or any permission/rate considerations.

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-loads purpose and side effects before examples, and the sentences are dense but purposeful. The two code examples consume real space, though they earn it by resolving the ambiguous chain parameters.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects, the nested-target case, and error returns, which is close to complete. The remaining shortfalls are the value range convention and a clear statement of what the verification return contains.

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 must compensate, and it partially does: the example clarifies chain_index/chain_device_index nesting and hints at a normalized value via 0.75. However track_index, device_index, and the numeric range/units of value are never explained, leaving key parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('Write a named device parameter and verify the observed Live value'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling get_parameter_value. The scope (one parameter, one device) is clear without opening the schema.

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?

Provides concrete usage examples, including the nested-chain case (chain_index/chain_device_index reaching a device inside a rack) and the edge case where chain_index alone targets the chain mixer limited to volume/panning. It does not explicitly route the agent to get_parameter_value for reads, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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