Fx Pulse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key behavior: the macro is applied for N bars and then cut off, indicating the effect is temporary. However, it does not clarify whether this mutates state, requires a loaded deck, affects current playback, or leaves any residual state behind.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. The effect examples at the end add flavor but are not strictly necessary; despite that, nothing is redundant and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema whose contents are unknown, the description is not enough for confident invocation. It leaves required parameter semantics, usage context, and expected behavior gaps. It is adequate for understanding the general idea but not complete enough for reliable agent use.

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 must explain the parameters. It mentions 'intensity', 'N bars' (bars), and 'macro', but the required 'deck' parameter is entirely absent. It also provides no accepted value ranges or formats for macro or deck, leaving required parameters under-explained.

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 states a concrete action with a specific resource: 'Punch a PERF macro to intensity for N bars, then cut it.' It clearly communicates a transient macro pulse effect and includes evocative examples of the result. It is less than a 5 because 'PERF' is unexplained and the relationship to sibling tools like set_fx_macro is not explicitly distinguished.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_fx_macro or fx_sweep. The description implies a performance-oriented effect but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and effect examples alone.

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