plugin_set_param

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a write operation and the normalized value range, but it omits clamping/rounding behavior, side effects, undo semantics, validity requirements, and return value. For a mutating tool this is thin.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the essential constraint ('0.0..1.0 normalised') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 5-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, a single sentence is inadequate. Required parameters are underdocumented, and there is no guidance on plugin context, indexing semantics, location/slot behavior, or what happens after the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 5 parameters, and the description only adds meaning to the value parameter via '0.0..1.0 normalised'. It does not explain what index/param identify, what slot does, or when location should be 'channel' versus 'mixer'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a single parameter'), with the normalized range spelled out. It is clear and distinguishable from sibling plugin tools like plugin_get_param or plugin_set_preset, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies it should be used when the agent wants to change one plugin parameter, but it never states when to use it versus other plugin_* tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having a plugin focused/selected. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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