set_fx_param

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the normalized default and the 0..1 range, but is silent on permissions, whether the change is reversible/undoable, behavior when an index is invalid, and whether the plugin must be loaded first.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key semantic caveat. No filler, though the backtick-quoted code style is slightly informal.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin. An agent still cannot determine valid index ranges, error behavior, or what a successful call returns, which is a meaningful gap for a state-changing operation.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the value/normalized relationship (which is the most consequential semantic), but leaves track_index, fx_index, and param_index entirely undefined, including whether they are 0- or 1-based.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set an FX parameter'), and the normalized/value clarification pins down what 'set' means. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like add_fx/remove_fx/set_fx_enabled, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no prerequisites (e.g. the FX must already exist on the track) are stated. The only guidance is the normalized flag semantic, which is parameter-level rather than usage-level.

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