fl_set_mixer_volume_db

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

The description adds a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: 'prove the requested dB value on a later tick' signals asynchronous or deferred verification, and 'Search FL's fader curve' hints at the dB-to-fader mapping logic. It does not contradict the destructiveHint or readOnlyHint annotations. The wording is terse but does disclose non-obvious timing behavior.

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 short, but it is not front-loaded with the actual purpose; the internal mechanism ('Search FL's fader curve') is placed before the operation. It sacrifices clarity for brevity and uses jargon ('prove', 'later tick') without definition. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Even though the schema and output schema cover parameters and return values, the description does not state the core action or side effects of this destructive, non-idempotent write tool. It also fails to distinguish this tool from sibling mixer controls. For a 6-parameter mutating tool with async-style behavior, the description is materially incomplete.

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 schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3 per high schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the concept of a dB value. It neither clarifies the tolerance_db, expected_before, or session_fingerprint semantics, nor is it required to do so given the schema 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 leads with 'Search FL's fader curve,' which obscures the set operation implied by the tool name, and never explicitly says that the mixer fader is set to a target dB. 'Prove the requested dB value on a later tick' is an oblique way to describe the effect. An agent would struggle to confidently infer the primary action from this text alone.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fl_set_mixer_volume for normalized values. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or a preferred context. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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