update_fx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only lists the three modes. It never says the tool mutates persistent state, what happens when multiple optional params are combined, whether omitting them is a safe no-op, or what the call returns. This is a 6-param mutation tool, so the gap is significant.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the actions before anything else, with no filler. It could have been split into mode-specific clauses for sharper scanning, but it wastes nothing.

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, three-mode mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits mode-combination semantics (e.g. preset vs preset_index, enabled together with show), state persistence, and any indication of the result, leaving the agent to guess at call behavior.

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 schema already defines fx, track, show, preset, preset_index, and enabled with units and defaults. The description maps 'bypasses/enables', 'loads a preset', and 'opens its window' onto those fields, which is consistent but adds no formatting or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 three specific verbs tied to the resource: bypassing/enabling, loading a preset, and opening the plugin window. An agent can see this is the state/focus control for an existing FX. It stops short of naming siblings, so it does not explicitly distinguish itself from set_fx_parameter, add_fx, or remove_fx.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites are given in the description itself. The routing hint to list_fx_presets lives in the schema field descriptions, not here. The agent must infer when to reach for this multi-mode tool vs set_fx_parameter(s).

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