live_set_plugin_param

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return payload ('before/after') and states the change is reversible by re-setting the 'before' value. It does not say whether the change is immediate/audible, whether it applies to a live mixer or saved state, or what happens on invalid input.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the value-mode rule and the return/revert behavior. No filler, and the mutual-exclusivity constraint is stated explicitly with 'exactly one of'.

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 covers the critical unknowns: value encoding, return shape, and rollback. Remaining gaps (error behavior, whether 'slot' indexes inserts, unit expectations per parameter) are minor but real.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the hardest part: text vs normalized (0..1) vs value (raw within min..max) are given precise semantics plus concrete examples ('4.0:1', '-12 dB', 'Standard'). It leaves 'slot' and 'param' unglossed, so an agent must infer that slot is an insert index.

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: 'Set one plug-in parameter on a channel in the running Studio One', and scopes it to a single parameter so it cannot be confused with batch tools like live_plugin_params or live_plugin_snapshot. It also names the sibling that supplies parameter names.

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?

Points the agent at live_plugin_params as the source of the names it needs, which is the key prerequisite, and explains the three mutually exclusive ways to supply a value. It does not state when to avoid this tool (e.g. use live_set_automation for automation curves), which keeps it below a 5.

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