Set up a genre chain (plan)

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

Description provides rich behavioral detail beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint): it is a read-only plan, returns ordered intents, identifies missing plugins, and references apply tools that are logged and rollback-able. 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?

Single, well-organized paragraph that front-loads purpose, explains workflow, and provides an example. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 low parameter count (2), complete schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and follow-up actions. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, and description adds context: chain_type values are recipe types (vocal, drum_bus, bass, master) with an example chain. This augments the schema's basic descriptions.

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 the tool plans a genre-appropriate processing chain over existing plugins, distinguishing it from apply tools like fl_apply_eq_intent. It specifies it is read-only and returns ordered intent calls and missing steps.

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?

Explicit instructions: use to plan a chain, then after user approval apply steps via specific apply tools. Mentions that FL cannot load plugins so missing steps must be added manually. Example chain 'vocal: HP -> comp -> presence -> air -> reverb' clarifies typical usage.

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