Fl Channel Step Params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Turns the step on' but does not disclose whether this overwrites existing step data, how it interacts with the pattern parameter, or any side effects on the channel. The behavioral impact is under-explained.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Per-step values') and packs the parameter structure into a compact form. It is efficient, though it could benefit from clearer separation between purpose and technical details.

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?

Given the complexity of a melodic step sequencer and the complete absence of annotations and schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'index' refers to, how 'pattern' is used, whether the step list replaces existing steps, or what the output schema provides. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context.

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% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain the steps array structure with field names and value ranges for pitch, velocity, pan, shift, and fine_pitch. However, it does not explain the index parameter or the optional pattern parameter, leaving two of three parameters semantically ambiguous.

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 resource (per-step values for a melodic step sequencer) and an action (turns the step on). It clearly identifies the domain and the scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling fl_channel_steps, which might set steps in bulk, so it loses a point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fl_channel_steps or fl_channel_set. The description provides the data structure but not the conditions or scenarios that would select this tool over others.

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