set_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the accepted value range (0-100), which is genuine behavioral information, but says nothing about whether the change persists, whether it applies per-device or globally, or what permissions/state are required.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler and the constraint front-loaded. It is efficient, though terse enough that it leaves context gaps rather than being over-long.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and no usage context, an agent lacks information about scope (which device, persistence) and prerequisites for a playback-mutating tool, leaving the definition barely 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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'volume_percent' has no schema description, so the description's 'Valor entre 0 y 100' is the only source of its valid range. That is useful compensation, but no units nuances (e.g., clamping behavior, integer vs. float) or interaction with current volume are explained.

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 ('Ajusta el volumen'), so an agent immediately knows this sets playback volume. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like set_shuffle or set_repeat, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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, no preconditions (e.g., a track must be playing), and no indication of scope (global vs. a specific device among those in list_devices). The agent must infer all usage context.

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