set_device_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose critical behavioral traits like whether the set is instantaneous, required permissions, value range enforcement, or return value behavior. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 concise with a clear purpose sentence, a contextual remark, and a bullet list of parameter definitions. No redundant text, though the list could be more compact.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the basic action and parameter meanings but omits return value details, error conditions, and the need for the parameter index to be obtained from get_device_parameters. It is minimally adequate.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's role (e.g., 'track index (0-based)') and notes the typical value range (0.0–1.0). It also references get_device_parameters for finding parameter_index. However, it does not explain how to determine the valid value range per parameter.

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 clearly states 'Set a device parameter value' and provides specific examples (filter frequency, reverb dry/wet, compressor threshold), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_device_parameter_value (getter) or ramp_parameter (gradual change).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ramp_parameter or set_device_enabled. The description implies usage through examples but lacks direct instructions or exclusions.

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