cw_set_volume

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the MIDI CC7 mechanism and parameter format, but omits critical traits: whether a live MIDI connection is required, whether changes are real-time or undoable, error behavior, and what happens if the channel is invalid. These gaps make it insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and parameter hint.

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?

Given the simple mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It lacks behavioral context (connection requirements, side effects), does not explain the 'channel' parameter, and provides no guidance on error conditions or return values.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the relationship between 'level' (0.0–1.0) and 'value' (raw CC), which is helpful, but it completely omits 'channel' (default 1, range 1–16), leaving one parameter 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 (set) and resource (track's volume), and adds the mechanism (live MIDI cable CC7). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cw_set_track_volume or cw_midi_cc.

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 by specifying 'through the live MIDI cable (CC7)', implying usage when MIDI CC control is desired. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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