filter_set_param

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key mutation behavior ('Update') and a useful conversion detail ('auto-converted to int/float if numeric'). However, it does not clarify what 'active filter' means, whether the filter must already exist, or what happens on invalid input or overwriting an existing value.

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 action, followed by a compact, scannable argument list. Every sentence adds necessary information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 fully documented parameters, the mutation warning, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most operational needs. The remaining gap is the lack of guidance about filter 'active' state, error behavior, and distinction from clip_set_opacity, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters, including indexing conventions ('0-based'), the meaning of track_id, and examples for parameter names. The value conversion note is especially valuable because the schema types value as a string even though it is auto-converted to numeric types.

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 and resource: 'Update a single parameter on an active filter.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling filter operations like filter_add, filter_remove, and filter_list, while the phrase 'single parameter' narrows the scope 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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling clip_set_opacity creates potential ambiguity because the description lists 'opacity' as an example parameter, yet it never explains when a user should set opacity via a filter parameter versus via clip_set_opacity. The intended usage is only implied by the first sentence.

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