uad_plugin_preset

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral details. It discloses mutation via 'Recall', requires a 'loaded plugin slot', notes conditional validation ('when the engine lists it'), and states a scope limitation ('does not manage' channel-strip/Console session presets). However, it does not explain whether the current parameter state is overwritten or reversible, which keeps it from a 5.

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 two focused sentences: the first states exactly what the tool does, the second gives clear when/not-for guidance. No wasted words and no repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, and explicit non-goals, which is strong for a preset-recall tool. It relies on the output schema for return details and on `uad://limitations` for broader constraints, but the under-specified parameter relationships (target/slot/device) keep it from a 5.

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. It identifies 'preset by name' and 'loaded plugin slot', but does not explain the relationships among `target`, `slot`, and `device`, nor their accepted forms. Required parameters are not individually described, leaving ambiguity for a 4-param schema with defaults.

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 specific verb 'Recall' with a clear resource: 'a preset by name into a loaded plugin slot'. It also adds a distinguishing detail about validation against the plugin's preset browser, separating it from parameter-setting or plugin-loading 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?

Explicit 'Use when' clause gives a clear trigger: 'a named factory or user preset is a faster starting point than setting parameters.' The 'Not for' clause excludes channel-strip/Console session presets and references a limitations doc, providing clear alternatives.

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