instruments_load_preset

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

Annotations declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false) with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that the entire sound is replaced 'as the plugin's own preset browser would' and that the operation is undoable — the latter is not expressible in the annotations. It doesn't mention permissions or error behavior.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the follow-up workflow in second position. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it replaces, the follow-up inspection path, and undoability. Only edge-case behavior (unsupported plugin, bad path) is absent, which is a minor gap.

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 the schema already explains that path comes from instruments.presets and that track accepts a stable UUID or a shifting 0-based index. The description's 'from instruments.presets' repeats rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (load), a specific resource (preset file), and a specific target (the plugin on a track), plus the scope of the effect ('its whole sound, as the plugin's own preset browser would'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like instruments_presets (which supplies the file) and params_set (which tweaks individual values).

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 description routes the agent through the workflow: get the path from instruments.presets, call this, then use params.list to see the resulting values to tweak. That gives clear context for when to reach for this tool, but it offers no exclusions or failure conditions (e.g. what if the plugin exposes no presets or the path is invalid).

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