Create Preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the side effect (an XML file written to the User presets folder, picked up live with no restart), which is genuinely useful. It omits other behavior an agent needs, such as what happens on a name collision/overwrite or how path errors surface.

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?

Front-loads the one-sentence purpose, then a tight per-parameter list with no filler. Slightly dense but every line carries information; only minor trim possible.

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, so return values needn't be described, and the parameter coverage is complete. The remaining gap is mutation semantics (overwrite/duplicate handling and path validation) that a create tool should disclose.

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 and largely does: it explains nombre (and that it becomes the file name), ampli_nam's slot, pedal_nam's slot, cab1..cab4, and gives a concrete params example with real keys/values plus a pointer to list_param_ids.

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+resource ('Create a WaveMind preset') and immediately clarifies the underlying artifact (a .preset XML written to the User presets folder). This cleanly separates it from siblings like list_presets, read_preset, and delete_preset.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the parameter docs, and it usefully routes the agent to list_param_ids when it needs parameter ids. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or what prerequisites (valid .nam/.wav paths) must hold.

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