edit_effect

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low, and the description still adds real value: changes take effect immediately on the live signal but are discarded unless save_preset is called. That transient-vs-persisted distinction is exactly the kind of behavioral trait an agent needs and cannot get from the hints.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines capability and value formats, the second defines persistence semantics. No filler, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 nested params, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essentials: what can be edited, in what units, and whether changes persist. Minor gaps remain — what happens when a label is unknown or the slot is empty, and how labels are discovered — but nothing that blocks a correct call.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the schema already documents slot position, params as label->value, and raw_words. The description adds genuine meaning for params by specifying real units and sync-note notation ("1/8D") and by signaling that enabling and parameter setting can be combined in one call. It says nothing about the advanced raw_words escape hatch, so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb set and resource: turn an effect on/off and/or set its parameters by label at a given slot, with units spelled out (dB, Hz, ms, semitones). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'change_effect', leaving the agent to infer that this one tweaks parameters while the other swaps effect types.

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 one concrete workflow rule — edits are live but transient until save_preset — which implicitly routes the agent to save_preset for persistence. It offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to change_effect, add_effect, or remove_effect, so the agent must infer the boundaries.

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