uad_set_plugin_params

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that values must be normalized 0-1, that the protocol exposes only normalized values, and that display text is read-only. It implies mutation (setting parameters) but does not elaborate on side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. Still, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, all relevant and useful. The purpose statement includes an example, the second sentence gives a clear when-to-use and prerequisite, and the third states an important limitation. No fluff, tight structure.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers the core usage well: what it does, how to format params, and when to use it. It does not explain the 'target', 'slot', and 'device' parameters in detail, nor does it describe error handling, but the output schema covers return values and the recommendation to read uad_get_plugin_params fills potential gaps. Overall, fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 fully explains the 'params' parameter with an inline example and clarifies normalized value semantics, but it leaves 'target', 'slot', and 'device' mostly unexplained. The titles give some hint, but the description does not specify what 'target' refers to (e.g., plugin name, instance ID) or the role of slot/device. Partial compensation.

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 clearly states a specific action: batch-setting a loaded plugin's parameters by name. It uses a concrete verb 'Batch-set' and a distinct resource ('loaded plugin's parameters'), and it differentiates itself from sibling tools like uad_get_plugin_params by focusing on mutation rather than reading.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when: dialling in a plugin after loading it.' It also recommends reading uad_get_plugin_params first for exact names and current values, and it states what the tool is not for (dB/Hz values), clarifying the normalized-only constraint. This is exemplary usage direction.

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