set_plugin_param

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the normalized value range '0..1' and that param ids must come from get_plugin_params, which are real behavioral facts absent from the schema. It does not say whether the change is persisted, undoable, or what happens for out-of-range values or invalid owner ids.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the resource. The nested possessive phrasing ('of the plugin of channel or slot') is slightly dense but every clause carries 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 3-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter meaning and value range but omits owner indexing conventions, persistence/undo behavior, and failure modes. Adequate to call correctly in the happy path, thin for a write operation.

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% (bare integer/number titles), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: owner is 'channel or slot', param is an id from get_plugin_params, value is bounded 0..1. It only leaves the indexing base/valid range for owner unspecified.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Set parameter `param` ... of the plugin of channel or slot `owner` to `value`'. An agent can tell this writes a plugin parameter and is the counterpart of get_plugin_params. It stops short of differentiating from generic effect/mixer setters among the siblings.

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 parenthetical '(an id from get_plugin_params)' implies a required discovery step, which is useful sequencing guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g. set_effect, set_mixer_track) and no mention of preconditions or persistence expectations.

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