Fl Plugin Preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral aspects: 'FL loads it asynchronously' and 'renames the channel'. This gives the agent awareness of side effects. However, it does not mention potential errors, return values, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving some gaps.

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, concise sentence that packs essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loads the core action, followed by useful caveats. No wasted words.

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 gives the core action and a few side effects, but lacks context about the return value, error conditions, and the precise meaning of all parameters. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is somewhat adequate, but a more complete description would clarify parameter semantics and expected outcomes.

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 input schema defines three parameters (slot, index, direction) with zero description coverage. The description only hints that 'next/previous' is relevant (likely to 'direction'), but does not explain the role of 'slot' or 'index'. This is a significant gap; the agent cannot correctly populate all parameters based on the description alone.

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 states the action ('Step to the next/previous preset') and specifies the resource (plugin preset). It also adds operational detail ('one step per call') which distinguishes it from a bulk operation. It is unambiguous and easily differentiates from sibling tools like fl_plugin_info or fl_param_set.

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 explicitly mentions 'one step per call', implying the tool should be invoked repeatedly to step through presets, and notes the async loading behavior. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the operational hint provides sufficient guidance for typical usage. A clear 'when to use' statement would improve it.

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