set_bus_volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the mutation ('Set bus volume') without disclosing side effects like persistence to the layout file, behavior for invalid bus indices, or whether the change affects the current session or saved resource.

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 concise sentence that is easy to parse. It is efficient but arguably too minimal, omitting context about layout_path and potential side effects.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, important context is missing. The optional layout_path parameter is unexplained, and there is no mention of errors or persistence, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe invocation.

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?

The schema covers bus_index and volume_db with basic descriptions, but layout_path has no description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, missing the opportunity to explain layout_path's role and default.

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 'Set bus volume in dB' uses a clear verb and resource, explicitly stating the operation on bus volume. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_audio_bus and read_audio_bus_layout by targeting the volume-setting action specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions such as verifying the bus exists or the layout file is loaded. The description is a single statement with no usage context.

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