set_block_params

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaning the annotations cannot: changes are in-memory only ('without saving'), implying save_loaded_rig/save_rig_as_new is needed to persist, and out-of-range values are rejected rather than clamped. It also discloses that the read-back values are returned in the same units. It does not say whether a write can be reverted, but the non-persistent scope is the more important disclosure and it is present.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the `display` caveat and the error/return behavior. Every sentence carries a distinct fact (scope, unit semantics, validation and return). Slight density around 'describe_block has the ranges' is the only friction.

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 3-parameter mutator with a free-form nested `values` object and an output schema, the description covers the hard parts: unit interpretation, the 'Inf' sentinel, range validation, and the in-memory-only scope. The remaining gap is the `block` parameter's expected identifier format, which an agent must infer from siblings.

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% and all three parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the load. It explains `values` semantics thoroughly (normalized 0-1 by default, native units/option names under `display`, 'Inf' sentinel, out-of-range refused) and clarifies `display`'s effect, but leaves `block` unexplained — there is no hint about what identifier to pass or that list_blocks/get_block supply it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change parameters on the loaded rig without saving,' which separates it from sibling mutators like set_routing, set_mix, and set_scene. The 'without saving' qualifier also scopes the effect precisely. It does not name a sibling it is an alternative to, which keeps it just under a 5.

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 gives concrete usage context: use `display` when you want pedal-native units (-3 for dB, 800 for Hz, option names, 'Inf' for infinite reverb), and it routes the agent to describe_block for valid ranges. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like set_slot_block or set_mix, but the intended trigger (adjusting params on the already-loaded rig) is clear.

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