apply_preset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool applies a preset (a mutation) but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or limitations such as what happens if the preset doesn't exist. It fails to add behavioral context beyond the obvious action.

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 concise with a clear one-line purpose, followed by structured Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool with 2 required parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the operation, parameter details, return type, and examples. However, it omits error conditions or prerequisites like requiring a valid selection, which would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by listing valid preset_type values (dimmer, position, gobo, etc.) and the integer preset_id, and includes usage examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 uses a clear verb+resource structure: 'Apply an existing preset to the current selection.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., store_preset, delete_preset) by using the verb 'apply', which clearly indicates action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives.

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 implies usage when there is a current selection and an existing preset, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like store_preset or effect-related tools. No exclusions or context are given.

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