set_fx_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return behavior ("Returns what the plugin now displays") despite no output schema — a genuinely useful addition. It still omits mutation side effects, undo/reversibility, and permission or failure considerations, so it only partially meets the higher bar.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the resolution mechanism and return behavior. No filler, though the second clause is slightly dense.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description conveys what is set and what is returned, and the schema is fully documented. It stops short of covering side effects or failure modes an agent might need before mutating plugin state.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the display_value/display_text concept ("that number or text") and the plugin-terms semantics, but adds little beyond what the per-parameter schema descriptions already state.

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+resource ("Sets one FX parameter") and adds the mechanism — the value is expressed in the plugin's own units and resolved to a setting. It implies distinction from the plural set_fx_parameters via "one," but never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is only suggestive.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus set_fx_parameters, get_fx_parameters, or update_fx, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The mechanism note hints at how to pass display-style values but is not framed as guidance.

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