osc_set_effect_param

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires special permissions, what happens if invalid values are provided, whether changes are immediate or require confirmation, or what feedback (if any) is provided. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward parameter-setting tool and is perfectly front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the parameter (success/failure indicators), whether there are side effects, or what the typical use cases are within the broader OSC/mixer control context. The description should provide more behavioral context given the tool's complexity.

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 all three parameters (effect number, parameter number, value range). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('a parameter value for an effect'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on effect parameters rather than faders, mutes, or other mixer controls. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like osc_set_effect_mix or osc_set_effect_on, which also modify effects.

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 for setting various mixer parameters (faders, EQ, compression, etc.), there's no indication of when effect parameter adjustment is appropriate versus using other effect-related tools like osc_set_effect_mix or osc_set_effect_on.

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