take_fx_set_param

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral detail that value is normalized 0-1 and recommends validating ranges through take_fx_get_param, which is useful but limited. It does not disclose potential side effects or behavior on out-of-range values, relying on annotations for safety profile.

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 and front-loaded. It states the action in one sentence, then provides an Args section with a single parameter explanation. There is no redundant or filler content; every element earns its place. It is an efficient, minimal description.

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?

For a simple set operation with 6 required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It fails to explain how to identify the target take, FX, or parameter via the index parameters, and does not mention how to obtain these indices (likely through sibling getter tools). However, the annotation coverage and the naming of parameters may be sufficient for an agent familiar with the domain. The description is not thoroughly complete, but it provides the core action and one important value hint.

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 only explains the 'value' parameter (normalization and range checking), but entirely ignores the other five parameters: track_index, item_index, take_index, fx_index, param_index. While these names imply indices, the description does not clarify their semantics (e.g., zero-based vs one-based, or how to obtain them), leaving most parameters poorly described.

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: 'Set a parameter value on a take's FX plugin.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from getter tools like take_fx_get_param and enable/disable tools like take_fx_set_enabled. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 some usage hint by mentioning that the value is typically normalized 0-1 and advising to check min/max via take_fx_get_param. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal and mostly operational rather than strategic.

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