Suggest a preset by description

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: reading preset names from disk, ranking by name match, and name-only matching. This aligns with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences pack purpose, mechanism, limitation, and workflow guidance without fluff. Front-loaded with key action, then details. Highly efficient.

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's complexity (suggesting presets), the description covers purpose, limitation, post-usage steps, and integrates with sibling tools. Output schema exists, so return details are unneeded. Fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-described. The description adds context about the matching mechanism (name-only) but does not materially enhance parameter understanding 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?

The description clearly states it suggests presets from the user's library based on a description and plugin, and explicitly notes it only matches names, not sound. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fl_list_presets.

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 explains the limitation that FL cannot load presets via API, directing the agent to recommend manual loading and then tweak parameters via other tools. This provides clear guidance on the tool's role in the workflow, though explicit comparison to alternatives is absent.

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