set_slot_block

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description goes meaningfully beyond that by disclosing that the placement is not persisted, that the parameters reset shortly after, the firmware-block refusal condition with concrete examples, and the return payload (chain plus `warnings` about Auto Assign Footswitches). It does not explain what happens when the target slot is already occupied, which is the key missing destructive-behavior detail.

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, each earning its place: the core action and its non-persisted scope come first, followed by the refusal condition and the return shape. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the description correctly defers detail while naming the `warnings` field, and the destructive/transient behavior is covered. For a destructive mutation on an indexed slot, however, the absence of any statement about overwriting an existing block or error behavior on an occupied slot leaves a material gap.

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 carry the parameter burden. It does supply the useful slot range (1-14) and indirect clues about valid `block` values via the ReValver Amp 2 / C-Verb 2 firmware names, but it never explains block-name format, case sensitivity, or how a block is identified, leaving the `block` string largely undefined.

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 with scope: 'Put a block in chain slot 1-14 without saving.' That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_block_params (which edits a block's parameters) or set_routing. It stops short of naming a sibling it might be confused with, so it doesn't reach 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?

The transient nature ('without saving', 'parameters reset shortly afterwards') and the refusal case ('Refused for blocks the firmware lists but has no object for') are stated, which implies when to use it and when it will fail. However, it never says when to choose this over set_block_params or how it relates to saving via save_loaded_rig, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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