select_preset

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

The annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing that unsaved edits to the current preset are discarded. That is a data-loss warning an agent could not derive from the annotations. It does not cover behavior on an out-of-range or empty slot, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the action is front-loaded and the side effect follows immediately. Nothing is repeated and nothing extraneous is included.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the action, the argument range, and the one non-obvious consequence. Remaining gaps, such as error behavior on an invalid or empty preset and whether the discarded edits are recoverable, are minor but would be worth including.

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 carries the burden, and it does restate the valid range 1-80 in prose. However, the schema already enforces minimum 1 and maximum 80, and the parameter name 'preset' is self-explanatory, so the sentence adds confirmation rather than new meaning such as slot-vs-bank semantics or behavior for an unwritten slot.

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 and resource ('Switch the pedal to preset') and bounds the argument range (1-80), which separates it from read-side siblings like get_preset and write-side ones like save_preset or create_preset. It stops short of naming an alternative such as audition_preset, so the distinction is implied 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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for loading an existing preset, versus get_preset for inspection or save_preset for persisting. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on choosing between select_preset and audition_preset, and no preconditions such as the preset needing to exist.

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