devices_set_bypass

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only. The description adds genuine domain behavior beyond that: the switch crossfades with no click, and the change is undoable, pointing the agent at edit_undo. It does not say what happens if slot is out of range or the device is missing, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three short clauses with no filler and the core action front-loaded. The opening phrase 'Bypass (true) or enable an effect' is slightly garbled (the object of 'bypass' is implicit), costing a little clarity in an otherwise tight two-sentence block.

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 3-parameter fully documented tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the essentials plus undo and click-free behavior. But with a near-identical sibling (midi_fx_set_bypass) unaddressed and no mention of failure conditions, an agent still has gaps to infer.

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 coverage is 100% and each of chain/slot/bypassed is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only disambiguates the boolean polarity (true = bypass), adding marginal value over the schema text 'Bypass the effect.'

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 and resource: bypass or enable an effect device. However, the title/aliasing against the sibling midi_fx_set_bypass is absent, so an agent looking at both 'set_bypass' tools gets no signal about which applies to audio devices vs MIDI FX. The polarity clarification ('true' = bypass) is helpful and specific.

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?

One concrete use case is given ('compare before / after with mix.meters'), which implies an A/B workflow, but there are no exclusions and no naming of the sibling alternative midi_fx_set_bypass. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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