set_fader

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

The annotations only declare the tool to be non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the change applies immediately, requires apply_changes, can be undone, or what the confirm parameter actually does. For a mutating tool, this leaves meaningful behavior unexplained.

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 with no filler: the first identifies the operation and target scope, the second explains the two value modes. The critical parameter choice is front-loaded and every sentence 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 simple setter, the description is close to sufficient, covering target scope and the db/delta_db choice. It is incomplete in exact target naming conventions, confirm behavior, and timing of the change, especially with no output schema or additional annotation detail.

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; it does clarify the db range and delta_db relativity, and loosely describes target classes. However, it does not specify the exact target string syntax or the meaning of confirm, leaving two of four parameters only partially documented.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Set a fader') and enumerates the supported target types: channel, aux, FX return, bus, FX send, main LR, or DCA. This makes the tool's scope immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_mute, set_send, and set_eq.

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 description gives clear operational guidance: provide either an absolute db value within -inf..+10 or a relative delta_db such as -3. It does not explicitly name exclusions, but the fader scope and sibling tool names make the intended use case obvious.

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