set_track_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: fader position vs dB (0.85 ≈ 0 dB, 1.0 ≈ +6 dB), equivalence of value and value_normalized, and that the reply reports dB. It also explains the master fader behavior, significantly enhancing the agent's understanding beyond a bare 'set volume'.

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 compact and front-loaded: a single clear action sentence followed by a concise, high-value note. Every sentence adds necessary information (scale mapping, equivalence, output, master fader), with no redundant or tangential content.

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 core: value semantics, output behavior (reply reports dB), and the master fader special case. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the lack of any explanation for track_index, the only required parameter, leaves the overall usage incomplete for an agent.

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 description adds meaning to value/value_normalized by stating they are equivalent and explaining the fader range, and it defines track='master'. However, the required track_index parameter is not described at all, leaving ambiguity about its format (zero-based? integer index?). Since schema coverage is 0%, this is a notable gap.

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 explicitly states the action and target: 'Set a track's volume fader'. It clarifies the fader position vs dB mapping, distinguishing it from simple volume tools. The special case for track='master' further defines its scope, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling setters like set_track_pan.

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 context on when to use this tool (volume adjustments) and important usage details like the fader range and master track behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use set_track_pan for panning', so it lacks the full when/why-not guidance.

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