Set FX Parameter

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable context by noting that parameter numbers and ranges vary by effect type, warning the agent that valid inputs depend on the selected FX type. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations and 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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the necessary context about FX rack and parameter behavior. 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 setter tool with three well-documented parameters and meaningful annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the target device, rack range, parameter range, and the variability with effect type. The main gap is a lack of guidance on how to determine the exact valid ranges for a given effect type, but this is a minor omission given the openWorldHint and schema constraints.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including ranges and interpretation notes, so the coverage is 100%. The description adds high-level context about FX rack count and parameter ranges but does not materially improve per-parameter understanding beyond what the schema already explains. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Set' and a clearly defined resource: 'parameter value for a specific effects rack on the X32/M32 mixer.' It further distinguishes itself from the generic sibling 'set_parameter' by emphasizing the FX rack context and providing rack/parameter numbering (1-8, 01-64). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives useful context about the X32/M32 having 8 FX racks and parameter ranges that vary by effect type, which implies when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the generic 'set_parameter' or 'fx_bypass', so usage guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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