Fx Sweep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does explain the up/down ramp values and the release snap-back. However, it does not say whether the action mutates saved state, requires a loaded deck, or is asynchronous over N bars, which would matter for a timed FX tool.

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 pack the core behavior, parameter directions, and a real-world use case with no filler. The most important behavioral rule (ramp directions) 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?

The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description covers the main effect. Still, for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema field descriptions and no annotations, the undefined deck and macro arguments leave an agent guessing before it can safely invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must define the parameters; it defines direction and release and gives 'N bars' for bars. Deck and macro are left entirely unexplained, and there is no value format for macro or allowed bar ranges.

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 a specific action ('ramp a PERF macro over N bars') and concrete use cases (filter sweep, riser, build-and-drop). It clearly separates this from sibling effects tools like set_fx_macro or fx_pulse by describing an automated ramping behavior.

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 through the musical examples and the build-and-drop note, but the description never explicitly contrasts fx_sweep with set_fx_macro or fx_pulse. An agent can infer the intended scenario, but not confidently know when to choose this over a sibling.

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