audition_preset

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

Given annotations declaring readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=false, the description adds real value by revealing that nothing is stored and that USB is the transport. It also discloses the required teardown call (end_audition). However, it does not say whether the previously active preset is disturbed, whether the audition is audible/blocking, or how failures surface.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then sources, then teardown. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical '(USB)' is slightly cryptic and could have been folded into a clearer transport note.

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 non-idempotent mutation-style tool with zero output schema and three undocumented top-level parameters, the description covers the essentials (non-persistence, exit path) but leaves the 'name' parameter, source exclusivity, and state-restoration behavior unexplained.

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% at the top level, so the description must carry the load; it explains 'file' and 'effects' through 'Source: a .preset file, or an effects list.' The 'name' parameter (max 20 chars) is never explained, and it remains ambiguous whether file and effects are mutually exclusive alternatives or can be combined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Play a preset on the pedal') plus a scoping constraint ('without storing it') that separates it from select_preset or save_preset. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

It states the two acceptable sources (a .preset file or an effects list) and, crucially, the exit condition: 'Call end_audition to leave it.' What is missing is guidance on when to audition rather than select an already-stored preset, or what happens to the current live state on entry.

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