create_preset

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by specifying what is destroyed ('replaces that slot') and that 'previous content backed up' — genuinely useful safety context. It also discloses the defaulting behavior for omitted parameters. It does not say whether the newly created preset becomes the active one, which would matter for an agent sequencing calls.

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 sentences, all front-loaded: what it does, where it writes, and the defaulting rule. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a nested effects array, the description covers the key decisions: destination choice, the destructive consequence, backup safety, and defaults. Missing are the return value shape and whether the preset is activated on write, but the safety picture is complete enough to call it correctly.

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 67%, so the schema already documents the file, slot, and confirm semantics, and the description adds only the framing that slot, file, or both are valid and that unspecified parameters take sensible defaults. It adds no detail on bpm, name, or how the effects chain ordering and the 9-item limit are handled. Modest value over structured data.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Build a whole preset from a list of effects in one step', which distinguishes it from single-effect siblings like add_effect or change_effect. It also names the three output destinations (slot, file, or both). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with save_preset or copy_preset, which are adjacent in intent.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the bulk-creation path and that slot writes are destructive while file writes are not. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no pointer to save_preset for persisting the current state, and no mention of prerequisites such as confirm for slot writes (that only appears in the schema).

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