set_audio_bus

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns that changes are 'live' and that persistence requires manual layout saving, which are crucial behavioral traits. It does not cover details like error handling or reversibility, but the core transparency about non-persistent mutation is well addressed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and object, then appends the two most important behavioral notes. No unnecessary words 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover both usage and behavioral context. It successfully conveys the purpose, live mutation, and persistence caveat. However, the tool has 7 parameters and moderate complexity, and the description doesn't clarify parameter roles (identifier vs new name) or expected value formats, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 groups parameters into categories ('volume, flags, send target or name') that map to schema properties (volume_db, mute/solo/bypass_effects, send, rename). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema names. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, it leaves room for ambiguity—e.g., it doesn't clarify that 'name' is the identifier while 'rename' is the new name, or specify unit for volume_db. Thus it 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 opens with 'Update an audio bus's volume, flags, send target or name', clearly stating the action (update) and the resource (audio bus) along with the affected attributes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_audio_bus (create) and add_audio_bus_effect (effect-specific). The mention of live audio state further clarifies its purpose.

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 phrase 'changes live audio state; save the bus layout manually to persist' gives strong contextual guidance about when to use this tool: for immediate modifications that require manual persistence. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for adding a new bus), so it falls short of a 5.

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