fl_set_mixer_volume

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: it reports the readback on a later tick, implying an asynchronous or delayed verification step. Annotations already mark it as destructive and non-read-only, so the description adds useful context about what happens after the write. The phrase 'later tick' is somewhat vague but still provides real behavioral insight.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. The primary action ('Set one mixer fader') is front-loaded, and the additional reporting behavior is included without wasted words.

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 rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description completes the picture by adding the verification/readback behavior. It does not repeat schema details, which is appropriate. The main gap is the lack of explicit alternative routing to fl_set_mixer_volume_db, but that is a usage-guidelines issue rather than a completeness gap.

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 100%, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., 'Fader position, 0.0 silent to 1.0 maximum', master refusal, concurrency guard). The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set one mixer fader', and adds the distinctive behavior of reporting the readback. It clearly identifies what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling fl_set_mixer_volume_db, which also sets mixer volume. The normalized vs. dB distinction is left to the parameter schema rather than the description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'one mixer fader' but does not explain when to use the normalized version over fl_set_mixer_volume_db, or any other mixer setter. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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