take_fx_set_enabled

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that the boolean parameter enables or bypasses the plugin, which clarifies the mutation behavior, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens to unrelated plugin state. With annotations carrying much of the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args:' block is minimal and directly relevant. It is appropriately concise for the provided text, though the overall brevity could be seen as under-specification elsewhere rather than a structural fault here.

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 5 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering only safety/idempotency, the description is incomplete. It omits what the four index parameters refer to and does not describe indexing context or return behavior. An agent would need to infer how to locate the take and FX plugin.

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 for all parameters. It documents only the 'enabled' parameter ('True to enable, False to bypass'), leaving track_index, item_index, take_index, and fx_index entirely undocumented in both schema and description. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 verb+resource: 'Enable or bypass an FX plugin on a take.' This distinguishes it from track_fx_set_enabled by specifying 'on a take,' and from take_fx_get_enabled by specifying the set action. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling alternatives, keeping it at 4 rather than 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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention when to use this instead of take_fx_get_enabled, track_fx_set_enabled, or other take FX tools. Usage is only implied by the function name and description.

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