cw_set_track_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing that the tool cannot actually dispatch in this build, that accessibility actions are inert on the fader, and that CAL has no volume builtin. It does not describe return values, but the critical operational limitation is made explicit.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately. The text is dense but every sentence adds materially useful context for a tool that is not dispatchable in this build.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies essential context about failure mode and alternatives. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain the index parameter or what a successful call would return.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for volume ('0.0 to 1.0+; 1.0 = unity') but gives no explanation of the required index parameter, leaving one of two parameters semantically undocumented.

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 ('Set a track's volume') and clarifies the value range. It also names cw_set_volume as a different mechanism, though it does not fully differentiate this tool from every sibling such as cw_set_volume until the caveat.

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?

It explicitly says the tool needs CakeScript (T1) and that this SONAR build cannot dispatch it, states there is no drop-in replacement, and points to cw_set_volume and cw_mixer_support as alternatives. This gives clear when/when-not guidance.

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