set_preamp

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'Phantom changes always need confirmation' alerts the agent to a required confirmation flow. It also reveals the gain range and the absolute/delta distinction, which are behavioral semantics not visible in the raw schema. While it doesn't disclose potential side effects or persistence, the key confirmation behavior is a valuable addition.

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 description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence front-loads the resource and the adjustable controls, and the second adds the critical confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place; this is an exemplary concise structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema) and minimal annotations, the description provides a useful overview but leaves important details unspecified. The agent still needs to infer how target is addressed, how confirm applies to non-phantom settings, and what the default behavior is for null values. It is adequate for a straightforward call but not fully complete for edge cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the entire burden. It explains gain_db (absolute with a -12..+60 dB range), delta_gain_db (delta), phantom, and invert at a high level. However, it does not clarify the target parameter, whether gain_db and delta_gain_db are mutually exclusive, or how confirm interacts with non-phantom changes. The core parameters are semantically covered, but gaps remain.

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 states the resource (mic preamp of a channel) and enumerates the exact adjustable parameters (gain with range, absolute or delta, phantom power, polarity invert). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_eq or set_fader by naming preamp-specific features. The purpose is instantly clear and specific.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. The only indirect hint is the preamp-specific feature list, but an agent is left to infer the tool's role from its name. No sibling comparisons or 'use this when' statements are present.

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