osc_set_effect_on

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Enable or disable an effect,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies system state.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Enable or disable an effect') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'effect' means in this system (e.g., audio effects in an OSC-controlled mixer), how effects are identified beyond numbers 1-8, and what happens upon execution. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (effect number 1-8, on as boolean for enable/disable). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what the effects correspond to or default states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Enable or disable an effect' clearly states the action (enable/disable) and resource (an effect), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of effect (e.g., audio effect in a mixing console) or differentiate from sibling tools like osc_set_eq_on or osc_set_compressor_on, which suggests it's a general effect control but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like osc_set_eq_on and osc_set_compressor_on that also enable/disable specific effects, there's no indication of which effect types this applies to or any prerequisites, leaving usage ambiguous.

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