Fl Channel Fx

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

The description discloses that omitted values are read back, which is an important behavior. It does not explicitly state that provided values are written to the channel, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or persistence. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the transparency burden and covers it only partially.

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, compact sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the resource ('Channel settings knobs') and includes the most important qualifiers: the parameter categories, normalization, and read-back behavior.

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 description provides enough to understand the basic function and normalization, and it notes read-back behavior. However, it does not describe the output schema, the meaning of the index parameter, or the allowed values for filter_type. These gaps make the tool only partially complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 has no per-parameter descriptions, and the tool description only groups parameters by category and states normalized 0-1. It does not explain specific semantics for parameters like filter_type, delay_time, or arp_gate, nor does it describe the required index parameter. The description adds some context but leaves most parameter meanings unresolved.

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 identifies the resource as channel settings knobs and lists the specific categories: arpeggiator, filter, and echo delay time. It also clarifies normalization and read-back behavior. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get/set', so the purpose is slightly implicit.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fl_channel_set or fl_param. There is no guidance about exclusions or preferred use cases, leaving the choice to the agent based only on the resource name.

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