take_fx_set_enabled

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context by clarifying that 'bypass' is the state when enabled is false, but it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or requirements such as the take/FX needing to exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence and a single useful Args entry. It front-loads the action and avoids any filler. Every word earns its place, and the format is clean and scannable.

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 five required parameters, no output schema, and low annotation richness, this description is not complete enough for correct invocation. The agent must infer how to identify the target take and FX, what the index parameters mean, and whether there is any return value. The essential action is clear, but the invocation context is under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents only the 'enabled' argument as 'True to enable, False to bypass,' which adds meaning for that one parameter. The four index parameters (track_index, item_index, take_index, fx_index) are entirely unexplained, leaving agents without guidance on their meaning, ordering, or zero-based nature.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Enable or bypass an FX plugin on a take.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from track-level FX tools like track_fx_set_enabled and from read-oriented siblings like take_fx_get_enabled. The use of 'take' scopes the resource precisely.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as take_fx_get_enabled for querying state or track_fx_set_enabled for track-level FX. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context cues beyond the basic action.

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