set_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that two distinct modes exist (boolean enable/disable vs numeric mix) and gives valid ranges, which is real behavioral signal. It omits what happens when the slot is empty, whether both arguments may be supplied at once, precedence between them, and error 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the target, and the range constraints with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the arguments and the two modes, but leaves the failure modes (nonexistent track/slot, empty slot) and argument interaction unspecified. It is adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does: slot is bounded to 0..9, track is identified as an id, mix to 0..1, and enabled maps to 'on or off'. Only the precise meaning of intermediate mix values and the interaction between mix and enabled are left unstated.

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 pair (enable/disable, set mix) against a specific resource: an effect slot on a mixer track. It implicitly distinguishes itself from add_effect/remove_effect/set_plugin_param by operating on an existing slot, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 action is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it (toggling or mixing an already-loaded effect), but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it versus remove_effect, add_effect, or set_plugin_param. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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