track_fx_set_param

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=false, which already signals non-destructiveness. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the 'set' action, such as side effects, reversibility, or validation behavior. It does note the value is 'typically normalized 0-1', which hints at range handling, but this is more parameter semantics than behavior. The description fails to disclose any meaningful operational traits beyond the annotation.

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 concise, with a single line and an args block. However, it is under-specified, prioritizing brevity over utility. The structure is adequate but could be improved with additional context about the indices without becoming verbose. It earns a middling score because it is compact but not well-rounded.

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 the tool has four required parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of indices, how to obtain them, or how this tool relates to the broader FX toolset. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 four parameters. Only 'value' is explained (normalized 0-1, check min/max). The indices (track_index, fx_index, param_index) are completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on how to obtain or interpret them. This is a significant gap given the low coverage.

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 the verb 'set' and the resource 'parameter value on an FX plugin', which is clear and specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like take_fx_set_param or track_fx_set_enabled, relying on the tool name to disambiguate. It is not a pure tautology but adds minimal specificity beyond the name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over take_fx_set_param or track_fx_set_enabled, nor any context about prerequisites or typical workflows. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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