set_master_volume

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic write operation. There are no annotations to supplement. It does not disclose side effects, undoability, or whether it triggers events. For a simple setter without annotations, this is minimally adequate but could include more context.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 with one relevant parameter (volume) and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information. It is complete given the tool's low complexity and the presence of sibling tools that cover related functionality.

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?

The description adds value by providing the volume range (0.0-1.0) not present in the schema. However, it does not explain the 'ctx' parameter, though that is a common pattern. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 precisely states the action ('set'), the target resource ('master track's volume'), and the valid range (0.0-1.0). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_master_volume' (read) and 'set_track_volume' (individual tracks).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'set_track_volume' or 'get_master_volume'). The tool name and description make it clear it's for the master track, but no when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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