set_master_device_parameter

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: false. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating a parameter is set. It does not disclose effects like validation, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loading the core purpose. It is concise but lacks detail, leaving out necessary elaboration on parameters or use cases.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description does not explain what the tool returns or any side effects. It assumes knowledge of DAW architecture and does not cover prerequisites or error scenarios, making it incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It states 'by name or index' but does not clarify which parameter refers to device vs. parameter itself. The schema shows device_index is integer, parameter can be string/integer, and value is number, but the description does not explain allowed values or relationships.

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 parameter on a Master-track device', indicating the action, target, and scope (master track). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_device_parameter (for regular tracks) and set_return_device_parameter. However, the mention of 'by name or index' is somewhat ambiguous as the schema only accepts an integer device index, not a name.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool name and description imply it is for master track devices, but no direct comparisons or exclusion criteria are given.

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