midi_fx_set_params

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds undo granularity ("Undoable, one step per call") and the requirement that values fall inside per-parameter ranges. That is genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations, though deeper failure/return details are absent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause (range source, undoability, step granularity) 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 3-parameter tool with a nested values object and no output schema, the description covers the key calling semantics: range source, undo behavior, and per-call granularity. It doesn't address partial failure or how unknown parameter names are handled, leaving a modest 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that values must lie in each parameter's range and where to obtain those ranges (midi_fx.get), which the schema's generic number type does not convey.

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: setting parameters on one MIDI FX slot, by name or index. This distinguishes it from read siblings like midi_fx_get and from midi_fx_set_bypass. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the analogous devices_set_params, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

"values in each parameter's range from midi_fx.get" gives an actionable prerequisite workflow: fetch ranges first. "One step per call" clarifies batching expectations. No explicit when-not or exclusions against siblings, so not a 5.

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