Save current mixer settings to an internal snapshot slot (1-64) with a custom name. Use confirm to overwrite an existing named snapshot.
Save the current board into the mixer's internal snapshot slot 1-64 with a name (max 12 chars). Overwriting a named slot needs confirm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| slot | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write behavior is known. The description adds valuable nuance beyond annotations by stating that overwriting a named slot requires confirm and by giving the slot range and name length limits.
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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the overwrite caveat is placed immediately after the core description. Every sentence adds needed information.
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 simple save operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: destination, slot range, name constraint, and overwrite confirmation. Minor gaps remain, such as exact behavior when confirm is false for a named slot or error/return format, but these are not critical for correct invocation.
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 carry parameter meaning. It does so by explaining slot is 1-64, name is max 12 characters, and overwriting a named slot needs confirm—thereby giving substance to the confirm parameter. It does not explicitly state what happens if confirm is false on an occupied slot, but coverage is solid overall.
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 verb ('Save'), a specific object ('current board'), and a precise destination ('mixer's internal snapshot slot 1-64'), plus the name constraint. This clearly distinguishes snapshot_save from read-only siblings like snapshot_list and snapshot_load.
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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it, but the description does not explicitly route away from alternatives such as save_preset, snapshot_load, or snapshot_list. It leaves the when/why-not comparisons to inference from sibling names rather than stating them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.