FX Bypass Control

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context by explaining that bypassing lets audio pass through unprocessed while retaining settings, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and informative annotations, the description sufficiently explains purpose and effect. It could explicitly state what 'enable' does, but that is implied by the bypass explanation.

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 100%, with both parameters well-described (fx range and bypass boolean). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already defines, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Bypass or enable') and the specific resource ('a specific effects rack on the X32/M32 mixer'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like fx_set_parameter, focusing on the bypass/enable toggle.

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 when to use the tool (to bypass or enable an effects rack) and explains the benefit of bypassing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using fx_set_parameter for other effect controls.

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