set_vocal_fx

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive local mutation, so the description need not repeat that. What it fails to disclose is the crucial behavioral trait this schema implies: all three sections are optional, so does an omitted section stay unchanged, and is this a partial merge or a full overwrite? That omission is material for a nested settings writer.

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?

It is a single front-loaded clause with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the terseness is under-specification rather than economy — virtually every sentence that would earn its place is absent.

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 three-object nested writer with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain partial-update behavior, what the numeric ranges mean (dB for EQ, 0-100 for levels/mix), and whether the sections are independent. None of that is present.

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%, and nested fields such as low_db/mid_db/high_db, sensitivity, mix, time, and decay carry no semantic explanation anywhere. The description only maps the three top-level objects to their names, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema structure itself.

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 names the resource group (vocal FX) and its components (compressor, EQ, reverb), which does roughly differentiate it from siblings like set_mixer and set_global. However it supplies no verb and no scope statement, so an agent must infer from the tool name 'set_vocal_fx' that this writes settings rather than reads them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing distinguishes this from change_effect, edit_effect, or the other set_* tools. The agent must guess that vocal FX is a separate chain-level block rather than an effect in the effect list.

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