set_effect_bypass_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little: it implies a mutated state but says nothing about permissions, whether the effect must exist, what happens on an out-of-range index, or whether the change is undoable. The opaque '(TOOL_TIMEBASE: na)' note actively obscures rather than clarifies 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?

Front-loaded in a single short sentence, so it is efficient, but the parenthetical annotation earns no place for an agent deciding how to call the tool. It errs toward under-specification rather than padding, so it is concise but not informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits how the optional speaker/track_id/project_path scoping works and what constitutes a valid effect_index, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps to effect_index ('by index') and bypass ('toggle'), leaving speaker, track_id, and project_path — which determine which effect chain is targeted — completely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Toggle bypass on one chain effect' — and adds the addressing mode ('by index'), which distinguishes it from add_effect_tool, remove_effect_tool, and list_effects_tool. The phrase 'chain effect' is domain jargon and '(TOOL_TIMEBASE: na)' adds nothing an agent can act on, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_effect_tool, remove_effect_tool, or list_effects_tool, nor any prerequisite such as needing the effect to already exist or a project to be open. The only parenthetical hint, 'TOOL_TIMEBASE: na', does not convey usage context.

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