toggle_effect

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the core mutation (enable/disable) and the non-destructive trait ('without removing it'), and explains 'False to bypass'. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites such as the effect already existing or validation/error behavior, leaving some transparency 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 descction is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact arg list. Every line earns its place without vagueness or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 four-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics and the key side-effect boundary (doesn't remove the effect). An output schema exists, so not describing the return value is acceptable; a brief nod to validating the effect chain would improve it but isn't essential.

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%, and the description compensates fully by explaining the meaning of every parameter: target_type values ('track' or 'mixer'), target_index semantics, effect name/chain position, and enabled true/false behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema types and titles.

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?

States a specific verb ('enable or disable') and resource ('an effect') and explicitly distinguishes the operation from removal. This separates it clearly from sibling tools like add_effect and remove_effect without needing to open schemas.

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 phrase 'without removing it' supplies clear context that this tool is for toggling the state of an existing effect rather than adding or deleting one. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is clear for an agent operating among the sibling tools.

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