set_audio_mood

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set the audio mood profile' reveals that this is a mutation (it sets something), but there's no information about persistence, reversibility, side effects on the mix/route, whether mute_all is destructive to restore, or whether this interacts with start_show/end_show sequencing. The behavioral impact of changing audio mood is entirely undisclosed.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. The description is appropriately short for a relatively simple one-parameter tool. Front-loaded with the verb+resource.

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 tool that mutates audio state with no output schema and no annotations, there is significant missing context. It doesn't explain what happens when mutes/effects are applied, whether they persist across shows or segments, how it fits into the broadcast workflow, or what observable state change an agent/user should expect. The tool is functionally opaque despite its brevity.

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% and the single 'mood' parameter has a full enum with descriptive values. The schema fully documents the accepted values, though the description doesn't explain what each mood does to the actual audio (e.g., does 'hype' boost certain frequencies? does 'mute_all' silence everything?). Since the schema carries the load, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 says 'Set the audio mood profile.' which identifies a specific verb+resource (set + audio mood). However, it doesn't distinguish what an 'audio mood profile' means or how it differs from sibling tools like trigger_effect or update_source_content which could also affect audio in a show context. There is no explanation of the effect this has on the user's actual audio output.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 17 sibling tools in a broadcast/show context, it's unclear whether this should be called during a live show, before a show starts, or in any context. The enum options (talk, game_focus, hype, cinema, celebration, mute_all) suggest scenarios, but the description provides no contextual guidance.

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