Fl Master

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

No annotations are present, but the description discloses the combined setter/getter behavior, normalization range, pitch midpoint, and extra last-tweaked output. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but for this control-surface tool the key behavior is covered.

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?

Two tight sentences pack the core semantics without fluff; front-loads the resource and includes the key normalization caveat.

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?

With an output schema present, return details are not required. The description covers all behavior needed to call the tool correctly with partial or full parameter sets, though it could mention whether all provided params are set at once.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the prose maps each parameter to meaning, gives the normalized range, explains pitch 0.5 = none, and states omitted params are read rather than written. This substantially compensates for the bare schema.

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?

Clearly identifies the resource (master volume/pitch/shuffle) and the dual read/write behavior via 'omitted ones are read' and 'reports the last-tweaked parameter.' It is slightly less explicit as a verb phrase but distinguishable from siblings like fl_get_levels or fl_transport.

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 guidance on when to prefer this over related tools such as fl_get_levels, fl_status, or fl_transport. It implies use for master-level controls but does not state alternatives or exclusions.

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