adjust_fader

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

The description discloses the read-modify-write flow and clamping behavior, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. Since no annotations are present, this disclosure carries the full burden, though it does not cover error cases or clamp limits.

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?

Two sentences front-load the verb, resource, relative mode, and example, then add a single behavioral note. There is no filler or repetition.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, key parameter semantics, and the important read-then-write-clamped behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly pointing to set_fader for absolute adjustments and giving clamp ranges.

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 coverage is low at 33%, and the description helps by clarifying that delta_db is in dB and implying sign via the lowering example. However, index and index-specific range details are not enriched, and clamp boundaries for the final fader value are not specified.

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?

The description clearly states the tool adjusts a strip fader relatively by a dB delta, with a concrete example. This distinguishes it from set_fader, which would be used for absolute fader setting.

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?

The relative/dB-delta language and example make it clear when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly exclude or name set_fader as the absolute alternative, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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