Fl Channel Set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses value ranges (volume 0-1 with 0.8 = 0 dB, pan -1..1, pitch -1..1), the color format (0xRRGGBB/'#rrggbb'), and exclusive selection behavior, but omits null-parameter semantics, error behavior for invalid indexes, and whether selection also deselects other channels.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, dense but readable. No wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 flat 10-parameter schema with no enums and an output schema makes this a moderate-complexity tool. The description covers the main editing behaviors but omits meaning for 5 parameters and edge cases (invalid index, null handling), leaving it only moderately complete.

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 0% parameter description coverage, so the description adds meaning for volume, pan, pitch, and color (ranges and formats) and implies select behavior—roughly half of the 10 parameters. name, mute, solo, mixer_track, and index remain unexplained.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('a channel') and lists the editable properties (volume, pan, pitch, colour, select). The phrasing clearly distinguishes it from sibling channel tools like fl_channel_steps, fl_channel_window, and fl_channel_tools.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The name and 'Edit a channel' wording imply a generic setter role, but no conditions or exclusions are stated relative to alternatives such as fl_channel_tools or fl_channel_steps.

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