devices_set_params

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: all values are range-checked before any change (atomic), the whole batch is one undo step, and the device is returned with new values. The annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this extra transactional detail is what earns the score.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action comes first, then validation/undo semantics, then the return value.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers validation, atomicity, undo granularity, and the response. Only error behavior on out-of-range values is left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value: values are interpreted in the parameter's own unit, and names are case-insensitive and match what devices.get reports. That resolves the main ambiguity in the loosely-typed 'values' map.

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: sets parameters of a builtin effect, in bulk, addressed by name or index. It distinguishes itself from devices_set_bypass and midi_fx_set_params through the 'builtin effect' scope, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'set several parameters ... at once' implies bulk use and the reference to devices.get implies prerequisites, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over params_set, midi_fx_set_params, or devices_set_bypass.

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