set_compressor

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

The description discloses range constraints and the ratio snapping behavior ('snaps to 1.1/1.3/...'), which goes beyond the sparse annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, confirmation requirements, or how changes propagate. With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description partially carries the behavioral burden but leaves the overall write behavior implicit.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and no filler. It efficiently packs all the ranges, but the run-on format buries individual parameters; a bulleted list would improve scannability.

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?

With 14 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It covers roughly half the parameters, omits the required target semantics entirely, and does not explain mode/detector/hold or the confirm/apply_changes workflow. An agent would need to infer too much to use the tool confidently.

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 is the only source for parameter meaning. It adds units and ranges for threshold, ratio, knee, makeup, attack, release, and mix, which map to seven schema parameters. However, it omits target, mode, detector, hold_ms, on, auto, and confirm, leaving those parameters semantically unexplained.

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?

Description opens with 'Compressor on a channel, bus or main LR' – a specific, non-tautological statement of what the tool acts on and the effect. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_gate or set_eq by naming the compressor, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'configure'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_gate or set_eq. The only scope information is the target type list, which is a constraint, not a usage rule. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for choosing this tool.

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