set_send

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive, and description adds the value range and send index mapping. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., affecting audio output) or prerequisite conditions beyond the parameters.

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, efficient sentence with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and key constraints.

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 simple setter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks explanation of the track_index parameter. It does not provide context on valid track indices or return track existence, which would improve completeness.

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; the description clarifies send_index (0=Return A, etc.) and value range (0.0-1.0). It does not explain track_index, but it partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'Set', the resource 'track's send level', and provides the send index mapping (Return A, B, etc.) and value range. It distinguishes this from other set_* tools by specifying send level.

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 implies when to use (to set a send level) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or how it differs from sibling tools like set_device_parameter or set_track_volume.

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