adjust_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses that changes are written 'in place', that 'the previous version is saved first' to enable undo, and that the 'note' field records user intent. This goes beyond a simple mutation statement.

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 and front-loaded, with a clear first sentence followed by two supporting details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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, mutation behavior, undo safety, and parameter semantics for the key fields. Output schema exists, so return values don't need elaboration. Minor omissions like error conditions or prerequisites are acceptable given the overall quality.

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 thoroughly explains the 'changes' parameter with a concrete example and the format 'the way the plugin shows them'. It also explains the 'note' parameter. The 'preset' parameter is left implicit but is self-explanatory from context.

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 opens with 'Change settings in an existing preset, in place,' which clearly specifies the verb (change), resource (preset), and scope (existing, in place). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_preset (new preset) and adjust_current_sound (current sound).

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 establishes clear context: it modifies an existing preset and even references undo_preset for reverting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like adjust_current_sound, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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