Fl Edison Script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool installs and runs a script and that open_on_track opens Edison on a mixer track, but it does not mention side effects, return values, failure modes, or whether it mutates project state.

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 concise and structured as two sentences without unnecessary filler. It is slightly repetitive in mentioning Edison and scripts, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool has 8 optional parameters and an output schema signal, but the description does not explain all parameters or what the tool returns. It covers the main action but omits enough context that an agent could not confidently predict full behavior.

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 description partially explains name, template, code, and open_on_track, but leaves bpm, freq, level, and fade_in completely unexplained. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate for all parameters, and it does not.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action: installing and running an Edison audio script from a template or raw enveditor code. It names a specific resource (Edison/FL Bridge scripts) and includes the special 'list templates' behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling Fl tools, so it falls just short of 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 description gives minimal usage guidance, mostly the 'No name = list templates' behavior. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like fl_internal or fl_exec, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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