set_track_volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the non-linear taper, the reason to prefer db, that the value is clamped to the fader range, and the special-case behavior for master (ignoring track_index). This goes well beyond a generic 'set volume' statement and gives the agent concrete expectations about how the tool behaves.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a brief but high-value paragraph explaining the db preference, and a bullet-point parameter list. Every sentence adds relevant information, and the format makes it easy for an agent to parse both the core purpose and the parameter details.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior, parameter semantics, and usage guidance. It explains clamping, the master special case, and the db/value relationship. However, it does not specify what happens if both db and value are provided, nor does it mention error behavior or return values (though no output schema exists). This is a minor gap but does not hinder basic invocation.

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 this thoroughly with a dedicated Parameters section that explains each parameter's meaning and usage: track_index (ignored for master), db (target level in dB, clamped), value (raw fader position alternative), and track_type (track/return/master). This adds crucial semantic context that the raw schema lacks.

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 a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Set a track's volume fader.' It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., set_track_panning, set_send) by naming the target resource (track volume) and the operation (set). The mention of track_type options (track, return, master) further clarifies scope.

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 provides clear usage context by advising to prefer `db` over `value` due to Live's non-linear fader taper, with a concrete example (0.85 = 0 dB, 1.0 = +6 dB). It also clarifies that track_index is ignored for master, which is an implicit exclusion. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, though sibling tools are different enough that no conflict arises.

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