Set plugin parameter

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

The description reveals that the operation is logged and undo-able, and that it returns before/after values plus resolved index/name. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), which already indicate safety. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, param resolution, undoability, and return values. It does not detail the output schema format, but that is expected to be in the schema itself. The description is sufficiently complete for a single-parameter setter.

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?

The schema description coverage is 50% (only 'param' and 'value' have descriptions). The description clarifies that 'param' can be an index or name resolved from the live list, adding value. For 'value', it restates the normalized range already in the schema. It does not cover 'track' or 'slot', but the overall explanation partially compensates for low coverage.

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 clearly states 'Set one plugin parameter' and specifies the normalization range, param resolution, and undoability. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like fl_plugin_get_params (which retrieves parameters) and fl_rollback_last_change (which undoes changes).

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 mentions that changes are undo-able via fl_rollback_last_change, giving a clear alternative for reversal. It implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to set a single parameter) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other set tools like fl_set_mixer_volume.

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